Review of Beyond Human Nature, by Jesse J. Prinz

Brenton Sanderson


Jesse J. Prinz is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the City University of New York and an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina. His academic specialism is the philosophy of psychology, and he has produced books and articles on emotion, moral psychology, aesthetics and consciousness. His latest book, Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, was published earlier this year. Like much of his previous work, this new book is an attack on “psychological nativism.” Prinz (who is Jewish) claims that his latest book “concerns the cultural impact on human variation” and is part “of a critique of approaches that oversell the role of biology.”[i] The Jewish ethno-political agenda behind this critique soon becomes clear when the author acknowledges his “intellectual heroes who hover silently in the background. I mention here Franz Boas, whose pioneering work in anthropology has been an inspiration to many who try to establish universal human dignity through the study of diversity.”[ii]

In arguing for the primacy of nurture over nature, Prinz devotes a significant part of his book to attempting to explain why measured racial differences in IQ can be ascribed to environmental rather than genetic factors. He believes that “The IQ controversy is an extreme example of a more general tendency to explain human abilities by appeal to biology,” and regards it as “a particularly egregious case because it legitimates biases against many subjugated groups and mistakes social injustice for biological necessity.”[iii] For Prinz “one of the great tragedies of IQ testing is that researchers have used their results to argue fallaciously that certain groups of people differ in intelligence.”[iv] Introducing his case for an environmental explanation for racial differences in IQ, he notes that

everyone agrees that intelligence can be affected by the genes. The fact that humans are smarter than dogs is clearly a consequence of our biology. Everyone also agrees that differences in human intelligence can be genetic. Some people can be congenitally retarded, and extreme forms of genius are likely to be genetically based as well. But what about the vast majority of us who lie somewhere between Einstein and Tweedledumb [note the standard invocation of the Jewish Einstein as the quintessence of human genius]. Genius and retardation are rare conditions, which may result from genetic mutations. Are the differences between people who fall in the normal range distinguished by the genes? Is the run-of-the-mill dullard biologically different from a garden variety whiz-kid? And if so, are those biological differences fixed, or might they be altered by experience? These questions become even more heated when we turn from individual differences to differences between groups.

Do biological differences in brain power come pre-packaged with biological differences in pigmentation? These are touchy topics, and naturists have felt considerable heat for defending positions that are politically incorrect. I don’t think we should let politics arbitrate in this case, however. I think naturists simply get the science wrong. While some differences in intelligence may be linked to biology, most people have pretty comparable biological endowments. If we want to find an explanation for group-wide social inequity, then we would be better off studying the negative effects of poverty, and the positive effects of cultural practices that encourage learning.[v]

Advertisement

Totally ignoring the work of Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen and others, Prinz claims that the most recent example of this supposedly wrongheaded psychological ‘naturism’ is Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life from 1994. According to Prinz, Herrnstein and Murray make several “startling claims” in The Bell Curve. Among these are “that men are capable of greater extremes of intelligence than women, that White people are more intelligent on average than people of color, and that east Asians and Jews are on average more intelligent than Christians.”[vi] Prinz repeatedly promotes the lie that Judaism is merely a religion by comparing Jews to “Christians” rather than Europeans. He seems unconcerned that many millions of “east Asians” (and indeed some Jews) also happen to be “Christians”.

Prof. Jesse J. Prinz

For the author, these “highly provocative — even offensive” claims are “consistent with the widespread pre-theoretical assumptions that are usually dismissed as hateful bigotry: women aren’t as smart as men, Black people are dumb, and Jews and Asians are dangerously clever.” According to Prinz, “Herrnstein and Murray give these attitudes an air of scientific respectability by presenting a hundred pages of charts and tables documenting measurable differences in intelligence.”[vii] Dismissing the validity of this data, and the conclusions that Herrnstein and Murray draw from it, Prinz maintains that “the central claims in the book are based on faulty assumptions, bad inferences, and questionable methods.”[viii]

Prinz scornfully notes that the authors of The Bell Curve “reveal their politics” in recommending major policy changes like disbanding affirmative action programs. These policy recommendations being ultimately based on assumptions that “affirmative action programs cannot increase the intelligence of their beneficiaries, and people with lower IQ will perform less efficiently in the average job.”[ix] Herrnstein and Murray’s central thesis — that racial differences in intelligence go a long way to explaining differences in educational attainment, earnings, socioeconomic status, crime, longevity, fertility and other social phenomena in the United States – is, for Prinz, “based on a simple fallacy: one cannot study traits within groups of people and then draw conclusions about differences between groups of people.”[x] This rejection of reductionist scientific method, because it inevitably oversimplifies real processes, was pioneered by Harvard population biologist (and ethnocentric Jew) Richard Lewontin. Kevin MacDonald notes in Culture of Critique that the result of this rejection “is a hyper-purism that settles for nothing less than absolute certainty and absolutely correct methodology, epistemology, and ontology. In developmental psychology such a program would ultimately lead to rejection of all generalizations, including those relating to the average effects of environments. … By adopting this philosophy of science, Lewontin is able to discredit attempts by scientists to develop theories and generalizations and thus, in the name of scientific rigor, avoid the possibility of any politically unacceptable scientific findings.”[xi]

To illustrate his point, the author uses an analogy first developed by Lewontin, whose philosophy of “developmental contextualism” has clearly influenced Prinz’s own ideas. Suppose, Lewontin proposes, we take a packet of seeds and plant half in nutrient soil and half in bad soil. Then we let them grow, providing equal water and sunlight to both groups. After a few months, we measure how tall they have grown. Height in plants (like height in people) is highly heritable, and the variation in height within each group of seeds will be entirely due to the genetic differences between the seeds. As all seeds had exactly the same light, water and soil, any within-group variation will be based on the intrinsic genetic potential of each seed. But suppose we compare the two groups. It is extremely likely that the seeds planted in bad soil will be much shorter than the seeds planted in nutrient-rich soil. Suppose the average height of the seeds that were planted in bad soil is fifteen centimeters lower than the average height of seeds grown in the good soil. Since height is heritable, and these groups are significantly different in height, we might conclude that the difference is genetic; we might say that the seeds of the short group are biologically inferior to the seeds of the tall group. But this, Lewontin tells us, would be a misconception. All the seeds came from the same packet. Both groups had exactly the same potential for growth. The difference between the groups is entirely attributable to an environmental difference. The plants in the short group would have been just as tall as the plants in the tall group, on average, if they had been planted in nutrient-rich soil.

According to Prinz,

the plant case exactly parallels the IQ case. If the average IQ for White Americans is 15 points higher than the IQ for Black Americans, that difference does not show that Whites are biologically smarter than Blacks. The difference might be completely explained by environmental differences. Black Americans might be nurtured in the sociological equivalent of bad soil [which, however, apparently does not affect their athletic performance]. The data are ambiguous between a genetic explanation and an environmental explanation. How, then, should we explain which explanation is right? The answer is simple. We should favor the biological explanation if Blacks and Whites are reared in the same environment, and we should favor the environmental explanation if there are significant biological differences between Blacks and Whites. When things are presented this way, it should be absolutely obvious that the best explanation for the IQ discrepancy between Whites and Blacks is environmental.[xii]

The problem with this analysis is that Prinz simply ignores evidence that undercuts (if not totally demolishes) his position, such as transracial adoption studies which show that, even when reared in very similar White middle class environments, the mean IQ of non-White adoptees remains the same as their racial group of origin. The largest and most carefully scrutinized study was the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. In this study the average age of adoption was less than two years, and the adoptees included White, Black, and mixed-race children. The adoptive parents were upper middle class Whites who were working in professional and managerial positions, were well educated, and whose mean IQ was about 120. The children in each racial category scored higher than usual for seven-year-old children for each racial group. However, when the children were tested again at 17, the improvement in IQ scores had vanished. Michael H. Hart notes that “for the adoptees in the study, the gap between the mean IQ scores of 17 year-old Whites and Blacks was over 16 points – every bit as large a difference as found in the general population. Note also that despite the similarity of the environments in which they were raised, the mixed-race adoptees scored much higher than the Black adoptees, which is just what would be predicted on hereditarian grounds.”[xiii] The premise underlying Lewontin’s plant analogy, that differently-evolved human racial groups are analogous to “seeds from the same packet” that only need to be raised in “nutrient-rich soil” to realize their equivalent biological potential is, therefore, not applicable.

Prof. Richard Lewontin

Furthermore, Prinz fails to mention that the Black-White IQ gap is not a phenomenon unique to the United States. Low Black scores on IQ tests are not observed in just one school, one city, one state, or one country, but are a global phenomenon. This phenomenon therefore requires an explanation that holds in all countries, not one that depends on the socioeconomic characteristics of American Blacks, and can therefore only explain the low IQs of Blacks in the US. The international consistency of the racial differences in IQ (and socioeconomic status) throughout the world is a powerful indication that these differences must have a strong genetic basis.

Richard Lynn notes that if racial differences in IQs in the United States and Britain were solely environmentally determined, “we should expect to find different racial hierarchies in other continents. Historical accident would have seen that, in some of these places, other races had secured the most privilege and wealth, the best nutrition and education for their children, and the highest IQs accruing from these economic advantages.”[xiv] Instead we find that lighter skinned peoples (i.e. Europeans and East Asians) invariably outperform darker-skinned peoples. Lynn makes the point that “only the race differences in intelligence theory can provide a coherent explanation for the consistent worldwide racial inequalities.”[xv] Rushton similarly reminds us that: “Only a theory that looks at both genes and environment in terms of Darwin’s theory of evolution can explain why races differ so consistently throughout the world and over the course of time.”[xvi]

In The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray showed that IQ differences between Blacks and Whites remain even when controlling for socioeconomic status. Prinz admits this finding would strongly support the case for a biological explanation for the IQ gap, were it not for the fact that there are “other enormous environmental differences” separating Blacks and Whites.

The fact that Black people are generally much poorer and, hence generally much more likely to be less educated and engage in criminal behavior, has an enormous impact on how Black people are perceived. We all involuntarily form stereotypes on the basis of the most salient members of a class, and we then use those stereotypes to judge all members of the class. Affluent Black people are regarded as less intelligent and trustworthy than affluent White people, because the Black stereotype is formed by exposure to Black people who are poor. White Americans see people of color working in low-paying service positions, or being carried off in handcuffs by police on the nightly news. These experiences have a measurable and unconscious effect on White attitudes. … Prejudice inevitably exerts a negative influence on its victims. Black Americans are stopped by police on highways more frequently than White Americans; they are regarded with fear by White pedestrians; and they are regarded as less intelligent than Whites by their educators. Racial prejudice influences Black Americans’ self-assessment and behavior …. The evidence for racial bias is overwhelming. Black Americans are raised in bad soil. They are subjected to an environment that promotes inequality by chronically and pervasively conveying the message that Black people have less potential than Whites. The result is an erosion of confidence, a dearth of opportunities and a drop in aptitude.[xvii]

The notion that a lack of racial self-esteem among American Blacks (resulting from negative stereotyping by Whites) is responsible for their low scores on IQ tests ignores the critical fact: the low IQ of Blacks is a worldwide phenomenon. Very low Black IQs have been uniformly recorded in the racially homogeneous Black nations of sub-Saharan Africa, where the racial bias of higher status Whites is presumably irrelevant. Psychological tests show that, on average, Black teenagers have higher self-esteem than Whites, rather than lower. Lynn notes that mulattos, despite being a small minority in the Caribbean where Blacks have political power, record higher IQs and do better than Blacks.[xviii] Likewise, despite being historically discriminated against in Western nations, the Japanese and Chinese have nevertheless recorded IQs as high as, or better than, Europeans. Likewise, the widespread antipathy toward Jews has not prevented them from obtaining high scores on IQ tests. Ignoring these obvious and problematic counter-examples, Prinz maintains that

in sum, we have solid evidence that black Americans grow up in an environment that significantly reduces their chances of success. This can explain the differences in black and white IQ scores. There is no reason to think these differences are biologically based. Similar morals can by drawn for the reported differences between men and women, between Jews and Christians and between Westerners and Easterners. Each of these groups has very different life-experiences, on average. Those differences may account for differences in IQ. Until all cultural influences are ruled out, we should assume that IQ discrepancies are environmental, rather than genetic. This should be our default assumption, because cultural differences are known to exist, and cultural differences have an impact on psychological traits.[xix]

Note Prinz’s claim that environmental differences ‘can explain’ Black IQ; he has no data that any particular environmental influence is the actual explanation for low Black IQ. His proposal is therefore nothing more than a politically correct hypothetical.

Indeed, there is no reason to think that the measured racial differences in IQ are not biologically based (or at least substantially so). Because important biological differences between the races are known to exist, and these differences have been tied to specific psychological and behavioral tendencies, it is rational to assume that IQ discrepancies are mostly genetic. Lynn observes that the sociological theories offered by Prinz and others “are no more than ad hoc and unquantifiable surmises and have so many exceptions that they are unable to provide a coherent explanation of the worldwide existence and consistency of racial hierarchies. To achieve credibility, a theory must explain the totality of the phenomena. Only intelligence theory can do this.”[xx] Accordingly, this should be our default assumption, because genetic differences between the races are known to exist, and genetic differences have an impact on psychological traits.

Prof. Richard Lynn

Perhaps conscious of the inherent weakness of his theory, Prinz hedges his position of biological racial equality by simultaneously arguing that “race” itself is not a biological reality, insisting that

there are no human breeds or races. The categories by which we divide people into “racial groups” have little or no meaning biologically. For one thing, there is vastly more biological variation within racial groups than between them, whereas biologically defined categories tend to have greater internal uniformity. The features we use to classify people are often superficial, and do not correlate with deeper biological similarities. For example, dark skin pigmentation is shared by sub-Saharan Africans and by some indigenous peoples of New Guinea, who are genetically closer to East Asians.[xxi] [Prinz neglects to mention that both of these groups share very low mean IQs. In any case, the racial classifications used by Lynn are biological descent groups, with Blacks linked to populations currently living in sub-Saharan Africa.]

Given his stated position, Prinz would ostensibly have no problem with mass non-Jewish immigration to Israel, since the distinction between Jew and Palestinian (and sub-Saharan African) has, according to him, little or no meaning biologically. His own behavior in his personal life indicates otherwise, with the author (who is a prominent atheist) thanking his very Jewish girlfriend (Rachel Bernstein) in the acknowledgements section of Beyond Human Nature.

Ignoring the many human population genetic studies which confirm the existence of human genetic clusters (or races), Prinz’s argument — that there is more biological variation within races than between them — is an argument frequently leveled against race realists, and yet it is invalid. In his On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter has shown that the when world populations are sampled, genetic variance between groups is on average about 0.125—equivalent to the kinship between grandparent and grandchild. This is a far from trivial amount, and the result is that humans have an enormous genetic interest in their ethnic groups (or their race) compared to other groups.

Another error comes from assuming that small differences in the input to a system must yield small differences in the system’s output. On the contrary, it is often the case that small differences in the input result in large differences in the final outcome. For instance, it has often been pointed out that human beings and chimpanzees differ in less than 2 percent of their DNA; nevertheless, the difference in intelligence between the species is enormous. Likewise, a large part of the difference between males and females is due to a single chromosome, indeed to a single gene (the SRY gene). Many genetic diseases are caused by a single gene, and some of these are deadly. Despite this obvious reality, Prinz persists with this specious argument, maintaining that:

From the gene’s eye point of view, members of different “ethnic” groups — such as Blacks and Whites, Asians and Westerners, Jews and Gentiles — are very similar. Indeed, within-group genetic differences are much greater than between-group genetic differences. Two randomly chosen Black people may be less genetically similar than a randomly chosen Black person and a randomly chosen White person. Many researchers believe that the term “race” has no biological meaning when it comes to our species. The racial groups we talk about have insufficient genetic uniformity to be classified together. Ethnic categories are created by us on the basis of superficial features. Differences in skin color are genetic, or course, but so are differences in eye color, and differences in ear lobes. There is little reason to think that any of these superficial traits correlate with genetic differences in psychology.[xxii]

On the contrary, given the known mechanisms of human evolution, there is little reason to think that the physical traits of human racial groups do not correlate with genetic differences in psychology. Different environments cause, via natural selection, biological differences among populations in brain size, just as they do in skin coloring and external morphology. Since genes have caused so many physical differences between the races, it is implausible that they have not caused any mental differences. The process of human evolution did not stop with the emergence of Homo sapiens. Lynn and Rushton contend that groups that resided for many millennia in regions with cold winters gradually — through the process of natural selection — evolved higher intelligence than groups living in milder climates. Rushton notes how “colonizing temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters.” He points out that “cognitive demands of manufacturing sophisticated tools and making fires, clothing, and shelters (as well as regulating the storage of food) would have selected for higher average intelligence levels than in the less cognitively demanding environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Those individuals who could not solve these problems of survival would have died out, leaving those with alleles for higher intelligence as the survivors.”[xxiii]

Mean IQ of Indigenous Peoples

This selection pressure for intelligence was the key driver for the increase in brain size among Europeans and East Asians. The groups that evolved into today’s Whites and Orientals needed a larger brain, but the process of building a bigger brain, Rushton observes, takes more time and energy during a person’s development. So increased brain size was counterbalanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity. “This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.”[xxiv] Rushton has also pointed out that the overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44 – suggesting brain size significantly underlies intelligence. Prinz is dismissive of such findings, making the following outrageous argument:

The idea that IQ results from big brains rests on a hopelessly simplistic theory of brain function. It used to be believed that the entire brain contributes equally to every cognitive task. If that were true, big brains might be brilliant. But everyone in neuroscience now recognizes that different brain areas do different things. So the idea that brain volume is directly responsible for higher IQ doesn’t make much sense. Having a big olfactory bulb, for example, may help you smell better, but it won’t make you Einstein.[xxv]

But of course, a larger brain would also be expected to have larger volume of areas that are important for IQ and academic success, such as areas supporting working memory. While not contesting the fact Blacks have smaller brains on average than Whites, Prinz dismisses this as a possible causal factor in the IQ gap between the races. This is despite Black people’s brains being about six percent smaller on average than the brains of White people, and the high correlation between brain size and IQ. It is logical to expect this to lead to a substantial difference in average intelligence between the groups, and this is confirmed by the empirical data. Hart makes the important point that, “as a substantial part of the brain is involved in activities other than reasoning (such as regulating temperature and heartbeat, receiving signals from sensory receptors, and coordinating muscle activity), and as the number of brain cells required for those activities is the same in Blacks and Whites, a difference of 6% in overall brain size would result in a somewhat larger difference in the number of neurons available for reasoning. Indeed, this factor might by itself explain a large part of the differences in the average intelligence of the two groups.”[xxvi]

Nearly a century of psychometric testing has established that differential selection pressures for general intelligence did exist and resulted, after 40,000 years, in significant differences in mean IQ (and associated behavioral tendencies) among the races – and that this has had, and continues to have, profound consequences in determining the civilization-building capacities of different racial groups. It is also a key reason why Third-World immigration to the West is so dysfunctional. Aside from the massive and ever-growing welfare burden on White taxpayers, Blacks commit at least five times more violent crime than Whites, and are fifty times more likely to commit a crime of violence (assault, robbery, rape) against Whites, than Whites against Blacks. Indeed, based on international samples, Rushton has shown that Blacks are as disproportionately more likely to commit an act of criminal violence than Whites as men are more likely than women.  “Data from around the world and over the course of history show that males commit more crimes, especially violent crimes, than do females. And just about all scientists agree this difference has some biological basis.”[xxvii]

Homicide Offending by Race in the United States 1976-2005, from the Bureau of Justice

Prinz traces the “egregious” practice of ascribing racial differences in IQ back to Francis Galton and the eugenics movement of the nineteenth century. According to the author:

Eugenics was, from its inception, an instrument for promoting the in-group at the expense of all others. … This frenzy over eugenics was driven by the intuitive plausibility of the idea that good traits can be biologically inherited. Those who know anything about breeding farm animals or show dogs know that one can exercise some control over an offspring’s characteristics by carefully selecting the parents. The problem is that this intuitive idea collapses into dangerous pseudo-science in the case of human beings.[xxviii]

Prinz does not say exactly how eugenics as applied to humans is pseudo-science. Moreover, it would surely be more accurate to say that Judaism has been, from its inception, an instrument for promoting the Jewish in-group at the expense of all others. Instead of being “pseudo-science,” eugenics is likely responsible for the relatively high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews like Prinz himself. Rather than accepting this, Prinz holds that high Jewish IQ is solely a product of environmental influences. This amounts to saying that Judaism is only a cultural construct, and is not centrally preoccupied with the preservation and flourishing of a coherent ethnic community. While few would question the significance of cultural traits in promoting Jewish educational attainment, such traits have been formed by, and are mediated through, the unique genetic inheritance of the Jews – which is the outgrowth of centuries of eugenic practices particularly among the Ashkenazim. Kevin MacDonald pinpoints why Jews like Prinz seek to ignore the immense importance of Jewish eugenics, noting that “in the case of eugenics and Jews, the reason for this historical obfuscation is clear: In recent decades, eugenics has been reconstructed as an anti-Jewish ideology — indeed, as the ideology of the Holocaust. Therefore, all Jewish involvement in eugenics must be expunged from the historical record. … In the end, Jewish opposition to eugenics may be seen as just another aspect of the ongoing ethnic warfare between Jews and Europeans.”

Accordingly, for Prinz, “cultural difference is sufficient to explain the [Jewish] pattern of academic achievement” and “there is no solid evidence for thinking that the Ashkenazi advantage in IQ tests is genetically, as opposed to culturally, caused.”[xxx] The Cochran, Hardy and Harpending study of Ashkenazi IQ, which concluded that Jewish eugenic practices (and natural selection pressures) played a role in bringing about their relatively high verbal and mathematical intelligence, yet low visual-spatial intelligence, is flatly rejected by the author. The paucity of great Jewish visual artists is, he insists, solely a legacy of culture and environment.

Jews don’t have an enduring tradition of representational art, because Jewish law prohibits representations of people, and European art production was controlled by wealthy Christian patrons for centuries. Once we move into modern times, Jews are not under-represented in art. Jewish artists include Camille Pissarro, Marc Chagall, Max Beckmann, Amedeo Modigliani, Man Ray, Frida Kahlo, Mark Rothko, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg and Diane Arbus.[xxxi]

Unfortunately for Prinz, three of the figures he cites to prove his case (Beckmann, Kahlo and Rauschenberg) had no Jewish ancestry at all. Pissarro was half-Jewish, while Ray and Arbus were photographers rather than painters. Regarding the artistic merits of Mark Rothko, I refer readers to my series of articles on Rothko posted on TOO last year (see here).

While Prinz vainly attempts to debunk the evidence that racial differences in intelligence are largely due to genetic factors, he fails to offer any direct evidence of the alleged equality of Black and White native intelligence. If his thesis — that all racial groups have the same genetic potential for intelligence — is correct, he should have been able to assemble large amounts of evidence directly supporting it. Noting the general absence of this direct evidence in the critiques of race realism, Hart proposes that: “it is reasonable to infer that such evidence does not exist, and the reason it does not exist is that their assertion is incorrect.”[xxxii] This is especially the case given that there is no a priori reason to assume measured racial differences in IQ are mostly environmental in origin.

Given the vast array of “scholarship” that is predicated on the assumed biological equality of the races – it still comes as something of a shock to see the totally fraudulent and unscientific basis upon which the cultural-Marxist dogma of multiculturalism rests. Rushton makes the point that these attempts to deny race differences amount to a new form of creationism. He notes that “The scientific data fit the Darwinian-Galtonian viewpoint, not the egalitarian one”;  the Darwinian-Galtonian model has been abandoned for political reasons, not because scientific research proved it wrong. Rushton certainly had books like Prinz’s Beyond Human Nature in mind when he observed that the result of this political contamination of the humanities is to leave “the social sciences closer to medieval theology or Renaissance humanitarianism than to modern science.”[xxxiii]

In the final analysis, Prinz’s book is just another effort by the Jewish intellectual Left to shore up the weak conceptual foundations of multiculturalism with its anti-White “diversity” fetish, performed with a sense of intellectual superiority and supreme self-confidence. In attempting to sure up these foundations, books like Beyond Human Nature seek to ensure that the ongoing White dispossession and displacement, which are at the core of this ideology, continue apace and unchallenged. It is the kind of casuistic arguments in Beyond Human Nature that sustain a racially desegregated social model in the West that guarantees that White people currently are, and will increasingly become, the victims of non-White aggression and violence. It is therefore incumbent on us to do what we can to expose the fraudulent basis of a set of beliefs which have been deliberately deployed to harm the economic, physical, and genetic welfare of our people.

REFERENCES

Hart, M.H. (2007) Understanding Human History: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

Lynn, R. (2008) The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ, and Inequality Worldwide, Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta GA.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

MacDonald, K.B. (2011) ‘Review of John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics”’, The Occidental Observer at: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/05/review-of-john-glads-jewish-eugenics/ 

Prinz, J.J. (2012) Beyond Human Nature: How Culture and Experience Shape Our Lives, Allen Lane, New York.

Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, Third Edition, Charles Darwin Research Institute, Port Huron.


ENDNOTES

[i] Prinz, p. x

[ii] Ibid. p. xi

[iii] Ibid. p. 79

[iv] Ibid. p. 62

[v] Ibid. p. 52

[vi] Ibid. p. 62

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid. p. 63

[ix] Ibid. p. 62

[x] Ibid. p. 64

[xi] MacDonald 1998/2001, p. 47

[xii] Prinz, p. 65

[xiii] Hart, p. 109

[xiv] Lynn, p. 297

[xv] Ibid. p. 290

[xvi] Rushton, p. 10

[xvii] Prinz, p. 65-66

[xviii] Lynn, p. 297

[xix] Prinz, p. 67

[xx] Lynn, p. 296

[xxi] Prinz, p. 56

[xxii] Ibid. p. 67

[xxiii] Rushton, pp. 228-229

[xxiv] Ibid. p. 11

[xxv] Prinz, p. 78

[xxvi] Hart, p. 110

[xxvii] Rushton, p. 23

[xxviii] Prinz, p. 55-56

[xxix] MacDonald 2011

[xxx] Prinz, p. 71

[xxxi] Ibid. p. 70

[xxxii] Hart, p. 111

[xxxiii] Rushton, p. 27-28

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

70 Comments to "Review of Beyond Human Nature, by Jesse J. Prinz"

  1. Richard Pierce's Gravatar Richard Pierce
    June 19, 2012 - 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Slightly o/t, Jewish evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker has penned an article attacking Group Selection Theory:

    http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

    “I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not. After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans. Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes. In this essay, I’ll explain why I think that this reasonableness is an illusion. The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history.”

    STEVEN PINKER is a Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology; Harvard University. Author, The Better Angels Of Our Nature: How Violence Has Declined, The Language Instinct, and How the Mind Works.

  2. M Steinberg's Gravatar M Steinberg
    June 11, 2012 - 6:29 am | Permalink

    ***lack of racial self-esteem among American Blacks***

    Ironically blacks actually report higher levels of self esteem than whites or asians. So the low self esteem explanation falls flat.

    • norman sunden's Gravatar norman sunden
      June 11, 2012 - 10:58 am | Permalink

      A funny satire on why white men have low self esteem Is the utube video by ramzpaul called pc land

  3. Neville's Gravatar Neville
    June 8, 2012 - 3:24 pm | Permalink

    @Jerry Thompson:

    Who do these Hebes think they’re fooling, anyway?
    Jerry Thompson June 4, 2012 – 7:49 pm

    Just about everyone who runs the USA.
    Or haven’t you noticed ?

  4. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    June 6, 2012 - 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Michael Levin, in Why Race Matters, makes the case for abolition of AA and all other compensatory measures, the aim of which is to ameliorate minority under-performance. The summary:
    http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_wrm_jls.html

  5. I love my peoople's Gravatar I love my peoople
    June 6, 2012 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Scientists have worked for 300 yrs to develop a logical and robust system to categorize life, and to determine their relatedness. As such, 5 simple criteria define sub-species, such as bird, mammal, and insect sub-species.

    Generally, 2 populations are sub-species if they meet the following 5 criteria:

    1) The populations live in different areas or or otherwise somewhat reproductively isolated.

    2) Each population has different traits.

    3) Offspring from each population breed true – i.e., 2 coyotes will produce a coyote pup, and 2 wolves will produce a wolf pup.

    4) The 95% rule: If individuals from the 2 populations are mixed, one can separate them with > 95% accuracy, based on their different traits. If the populations were the same, then one could not easily distinguish among them.

    5) When brought together, members of the 2 populations can interbreed to produce fertile offspring – i.e., this shows that they are the same species. However, under “natural” conditions, such interbreeding would be rare.

    Throughout biology, these 5 criteria delineate sub-species.

    For fun and profit, you can try this at home: apply these 5 criteria to human populations to answer the question: “Are there human sub-species?”

  6. I love my peoople's Gravatar I love my peoople
    June 6, 2012 - 12:04 pm | Permalink

    The varience in size among apples is greater than the variance in size between apples and oranges. Therefore there is no difference between apples and oranges; they are the same.

  7. I love my peoople's Gravatar I love my peoople
    June 6, 2012 - 11:55 am | Permalink

    @Ward Kendall: Notice that the “plant experiment starts by assuming that the seeds in the 2 groups are identical — i.e., the seeds in the good soil are exactly the same as the seeds in the bad soil.

    Then, the suprising conclusion of the study is that “the seeds in both groups were identical.”

    But the standard way to test for genetic difference is the “common garden experiment” whereby both groups are reared under identical conditions (therby eliminating any environmental influence). This has been via many methods, including adoption, twins, and by providing Africans with better “soil”, such as Head Start, prenatal and post-natal care and nutrition, school lunches, special tutors, etc., etc. Even with all of these extra benefits, the children of Africans (even upper-class Africans living in upper-class communities) test with low IQ.

    It’s genes, stupid!

  8. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    June 6, 2012 - 6:22 am | Permalink

    @Franklin Ryckaert:
    I was waiting for someone to point out the pathetic Prince’s clenched fists in the photo (clad in the MMA-style gloves).
    I wonder, whether the author of this piece, has planted the photo knowingly, i.e. in an attempt to magnify his correct message.

  9. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    June 6, 2012 - 5:53 am | Permalink

    @fender:

    hear hear……the more I have rejected the zeitgeist of self-hatred the more I have come to respect other high-achieving people/cultures such as the Japanese etc. If we go down, which we won’t, I hope the Japs survive and thrive.
    But also the selfish motive…if we are defeated, I hope oneday they get their comeuppance by the hand of another people.

  10. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    June 6, 2012 - 5:49 am | Permalink

    @GREZCM:
    You are a good observer. Yes indeed, we have to look at the symbolic of pictures, they often carry meaning. What I think this picture suggests (subliminally) is the following :

    1) The smart look in his eyes suggests intelligence.
    2)His youthful appearance and his cloths suggest enthousiasm.
    3) His posture and his clenched fists clad in that type of gloves suggest a fighting spirit.
    4) The “China Town” environment sugests multiculturalism.
    5) There are nowhere Whites to be seen in the picture. Perhaps an even more ominous suggestion, since for many anti-racists the “end of racism” simply means the end of Whites.
    6) Heck, there are no other people at all seen in this picture except for the Jewish professor himself. Does this suggest that at the end of the day “other people” (even if they all are non-White) don’t count at all and that the Jew will end up as Master of the World?

    So all things combined, I think the subliminal message is :
    Young enthousiast Jewish intellectual fights evil (White) prejudice to establish the multicultural Utopia on earth.

    On an even deeper level the message is : In this Utopia there will be no more Whites and the rest of humanity will be reduced to insignificance in order that the Jew may reign supreme.

    But we are not supposed to understand that.

  11. pessimist's Gravatar pessimist
    June 6, 2012 - 1:53 am | Permalink

    Prinz is a hack peddling 21st century Lysenkoism. Even a superficial glance shows that his assertions are bull***t. Look at our high schools with a high minority student base – they test out at the bottom and this after the states and federal agencies have poured billions into to the schools.

    In short any school with lots of Blacks and Mexicans is doomed to bottom level test scores and riddled with violence.

    Look at Blacks(and Indians) in their natural environment – they never even invented the wheel. And after 50 years of foreign aid, Africa still remains a basket case, unable to feed itself or even the achieve the level of personal hygiene the Romans had 2000 years ago.

    Look at the level of violent crime committed by Blacks(6% of the population commits 50% of the murders), it dwarfs anything done by Whites, Asians or even Hispanics.

    Blacks don’t even want to be part of Western(White society) to the point they victimize the Blacks who do try get rid of the ghetto mentality. What little of the Black middle we have is a result of Affirmative Action that has turned state and federal agencies into workfare camp for minorities who would otherwise be unemployable.

    Our cities today are held hostage by the Blacks who terrify their White and Jewish liberal bosses. The Bloombergs may run things when the money is flowing to the underclass but they become nobodies the moment the money ceases.

    In closing, stupid, venal Jews like Prinz only bull***t themselves and their fellow travelers who are busy whistling past the graveyard.

  12. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    June 6, 2012 - 1:53 am | Permalink

    @90404:
    Laptop, or not laptop. Mine is laptop as well. But, when you are offered a picture, you need (I mean one needs) to:
    1) detach the picture from the text,
    2) detach the picture from its description.

    Only then, one is able to see through the deception, if there is any.

    I don’t claim, that there is a measure of deception here. The picture of this Prinz (sic!) “thinker” is most informative, and in line with the message of the essay.

  13. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 6, 2012 - 1:48 am | Permalink

    @Lombard:
    You are smart enough to know ‘Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’.

  14. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 6, 2012 - 1:41 am | Permalink

    @Ward Kendall:
    Oh please, mate a tall dog with a short dog, you get tall and short pups [even if they are of diff breeds or mixed breeds].
    You dont get a litter of medium sized dogs.
    doubt me? ask a dog breeder.
    the seeds are form the same pack? who cares? they are not all exactly the same DNA, hence the differences.
    somone mentioned a school where an ‘equality’ ‘experiment’ for kids happened…
    Different colored eggs, but break em open and they are the same. NOT. They look the same, they dont grow the same.
    Even if this ‘scientific experiment’ had 2 eggs, from smae species.
    Hatched they might be of different genders.
    Oh, the libs say gender doent matter!!!!s

  15. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 6, 2012 - 1:34 am | Permalink

    @GREZCM:
    I noticed the ‘exotic, urban’ local….didnt notice the gloves on my laptops screen.

    KMD, what about writing about that ol windbag, J. Kozol?

  16. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 6, 2012 - 1:33 am | Permalink

    @Someday:
    Maybe his IQ is 85-95. Low. But his jewish mother pushed him.
    Do you think the book shows his smarts or sophistry?
    Or do you consider the latter to be a sign of the former?

  17. GREZCM's Gravatar GREZCM
    June 6, 2012 - 12:45 am | Permalink

    Just look at the photo of this “thinker”: it was taken in some Chinatown (to suggest his devotion to multi-kulti), but more importantly, notice his hand gloves! These are hand gloves of an MMA fighter (notice how thick they are in the knuckles area). The “thinker” is being portrayed as a fighter.
    How hilarious!

  18. fender's Gravatar fender
    June 5, 2012 - 8:58 pm | Permalink

    @ethnonationalism:

    I think it’s important that CoC gets translated into non-European languages as well. After the jews are done destroying everything we’ve built they’ll be heading over to China, India, and Japan to do the same. We can do them a service by educating them on how to help save their races and civilizations. It may be too late to save ours, but in our dying years we can maybe help save others from the middle eastern plague.

  19. Sandman's Gravatar Sandman
    June 5, 2012 - 6:22 pm | Permalink

    I think that Prinz is fully aware that his theories are junk but in his mind it still has value in rallying certain racial groups against Whites. That may be the real purpose of his book because it’s not really meant for White consumption anyhow. So if a few Whites are stupid enough to accept his ideas, that’s just a bonus for him. You can see these results for yourself everytime Blacks demand more money for education. They’re led to believe that if only more money were spent on them test scores would even out. So any time Whites excel at something, the presumption is that it was unfair in some way. That’s the real purpose of this book and I predict we’ll be seeing a lot more of them in the future since the conclusion is always to blame Whites.

  20. m's Gravatar m
    June 5, 2012 - 5:56 pm | Permalink

    @Bear: Why are so many university chairs and even majors being funded with titles such as: Philosophy of Science…

    Philosophy of science is not a bogus field, but a quite legitimate and long standing area of inquiry. It is usually concerned with defining the limits of empirical investigation, along with the natural ground or conditions that must be admitted for empirical science to be intelligible. It is not so much concerned with an analysis of things and their interaction, but rather with discovering the logical framework that must exist before any analysis can be undertaken. In this it is more related to metaphysics than otherwise.

    It would surprise me if many academic chairs were funded in this area.

  21. D. K.'s Gravatar D. K.
    June 5, 2012 - 5:40 pm | Permalink

    The gold standard for nature-nurture studies is twin studies– i.e., identical twins raised separately, compared to those raised together (and, also, contrasted with other sibling relationships and respective home environments). Does Dr. Prinz’ book even attempt to refute such studies’ overwhelming findings in favor of the hereditarian influence?

  22. ethnonationalism's Gravatar ethnonationalism
    June 5, 2012 - 5:14 pm | Permalink

    @fender:
    You don’t have to worry about that.
    Everyone in Europe knows enough English to read the book.

    We are bombarded with the language non-stop.

  23. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    June 5, 2012 - 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Prinz, a professor of philosophy at the City University of New York, speaks at a million miles an hour with a persuasive power that surely harks back to his grandfather, a rabbi from Nazi Berlin who spoke out against Hitler, moved to the States and became an activist and one of the organisers behind Martin Luther King jnr’s march on Washington.

    I can imagine what Prof. Jesse J. Prinz’s IQ is. Why is it that you have to be a Jew with 30 IQ points on the average non Jew to write books claiming IQ differences are insignificant? His only valid argument is an old one about concordances for schizophrenia

  24. Vlad writes's Gravatar Vlad writes
    June 5, 2012 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

    @90404: Of course, since Shockley co-invented the transistor, he had a lot of credibility.
    I love his views on eugenics, which of course the jews completely agree with concerning jews being superior.

  25. June 5, 2012 - 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Jesse J. (for Jew) Prinz: “Since height is heritable, and these groups are significantly different in height, we might conclude that the difference is genetic; we might say that the seeds of the short group are biologically inferior to the seeds of the tall group. But this, Lewontin tells us, would be a misconception. All the seeds came from the same packet. Both groups had exactly the same potential for growth. The difference between the groups is entirely attributable to an environmental difference. The plants in the short group would have been just as tall as the plants in the tall group, on average, if they had been planted in nutrient-rich soil.”

    This argument is easily demolished. As it states above, “all the seeds came from the same packet”. So (as the argument goes) why didn’t all the plants grow to equal height? Dr. Jew’s answer: because the superior seeds (taller) had enriched soil, while the shorter seeds did not. Thus, to eliminate the “racial superiority” of the taller plants, merely create an “equal environment” (same enriched soil) for the shorter plants, and they too will then attain equal height.

    Following this line of argument (that environment alone accounts for differences, or “superiority”) one could take six German shepherd puppies and six Chihuahua puppies and, raising them both in identical circumstances, produce an outcome where all the dogs are of the same size and intelligence. Of course, as any thinking person knows, this outcome would not happen.

    In the end, a good/bad environment renders a scientifically legitimate basis for comparison only when all the subjects used are of the same species/breed. Using multiple species (or breeds) of plants, animals, or humans will always result in skewed analyses.

    So, no matter how you fertilize the soil of society, negroes will always come up short.

    Hold Back This Day

    The Towers of Eden

  26. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    June 5, 2012 - 10:34 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:
    Thats funny, because the black Labrador is a gun dog and considered intelligent while the chockolate Labrador was developed as a show dog and considered quite dumb. The standard Labrador is a working dog as well (a retriever with affinity for water) and usually intelligent.

  27. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    June 5, 2012 - 10:27 am | Permalink
  28. fender's Gravatar fender
    June 5, 2012 - 9:50 am | Permalink

    Does anyone know how many languages Culture of Critique has been translated into? It’s amazing that the book ever saw the light of day, it’s such an utterly damning vision of Jews as a people who are constantly at war with those who were kind enough to take them in. If the US and Europe ever become Jew-wise it’ll be because of KMac’s writing. Absolutely brilliant.

  29. Tyron Parsons's Gravatar Tyron Parsons
    June 5, 2012 - 9:45 am | Permalink

    Franklin Ryckaert:

    You said:

    “Miscegenation on a mass scale with Blacks actually would solve the Jewish problem since it would lower their IQ to a comfortable 85. Imagine the whole Rothschild family consisting of such stupid mulattos, a blessing for the world!”

    Answer:

    LOL- true, but they would still have the evil Ashkenaz/Esau genes- though now dilluted ad unless this os overcome by a true spiritual ethic nothing will really change except now you will have a bunch of mixed races criminals being overtly violent instead of theft-murder and violence accomlished via trickey and proxie.

    You also made a good point about Hart. The solution to who is a good and bad Jew can be broken down by examining if or if not a “Jew” admits he is not a “Jew”- refusing that poison of an identity by way of converting to true Christianity- exposing the imposters. Case in point- Brother Nathaniel Kapner who admits he and his people are from Ashkenaz, and that they are not Judah. He maintains (paraphrase) that every single “Jew” who holds to that “Jew” identity nonsense is holding to an evil- anti Christ position that threatens not only whites worldwide, but all of humanity.

    Michael Santomauro:

    You said:

    Israel Interior Minister: Israel belongs to the white man

    Answer:

    Well he is right about that, except that the true White man is from Jacob-Isaac stock (not Japeth-Esau- IE: Fake Jews) with a true Christian belief system/morality. These “Jews” are neither “white” in that sense, nor is their morality and belief system up to par with true Christianity. Somehow, I suspect, we are seeing within this “admission” an attempt to combine the plight of the “Jews” and the white man. As we see White Christian nations on their heels being overwhelmed by masses of 3rd worlders, what better way to produce as false coming together of the tribes (Judah/Israel) than recreate the conditions the “Jews” had in the German work camps so as to transfer them in mass to Palistine after the war?

    Curmudgeon:

    I basically agree with your arguments. At the end of the day, each race has specific areas of superiority and inferiority- generally speaking. The areas each prospective group excels in are divided along moral, physical and intellectual lines, with the white man, being the most peculiar in that he/she can and does excel in all areas. Where we excel we do so in extremes on the scale (such as rates of genius and low intelligence). So, for example, while the average Asian IQ is higher than Whites, they have a largely consistant rate of intelligence which accounts for their base average. Whites, on the other hand, have a large amount of genius (way outnumbering the Asians) and an equally large amount of low intelligence (way out numbering the Asians) and this is the only reason why people say Asians are smarter than Whites- a statement that is true and false at the same time.We are truely a unique race!

    Brenton Sanderson:

    You said:

    “Unfortunately for every honest Jewish scholar like Hart there are thousands of others (like Prinz) engaged in the most shameless Jewish ethnic activism under the pretence of scholarship. ”

    Answer:

    Excellent point sir!

  30. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    June 5, 2012 - 9:45 am | Permalink

    @Alice Teller: “On Facebook there is a popular photo of three Labrador Retrievers, one light, one brown and one black, with the caption “tell us again we are different how? We don’t get it.” ”

    I was planning on bringing this up myself, Ms. Teller. As an example of the kinds of illogical, nay; STUPID arguments white people lap up without thinking. There were over 40,000 “shares” on that picture when I saw it months ago and most of those commenting approvingly had white faces.

    We live in a world filled to the brim with absurdities.

  31. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    June 5, 2012 - 6:25 am | Permalink

    @Mickey Meadows:

    but….creation of a body of work now is essential in the event of restoration of all or part of the power over our culture (e.g. MSM)

  32. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    June 5, 2012 - 6:23 am | Permalink

    @norman sunden:

    correct

  33. Lancashire lad's Gravatar Lancashire lad
    June 5, 2012 - 4:42 am | Permalink

    @matthew:
    “All I see here is a desperate and perverted search for identity, a search shaped by a sense of cultural paranoia, a cloying self-pity and a claustrophobic victimhood. ”

    That’s white nationalists for you. Not a criticism one could direct against any other ethnic group…

  34. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    June 5, 2012 - 4:22 am | Permalink

    @Not a Jonkey:

    “I think the article lacks the moral outrage that should be accompanying this article.”

    In general I think sober, factual deconstructions of the deconstructors have more lasting impact and persuasive power (especially for those new to race realism and the Jewish Question) than more obviously polemical writing.

    Needless to say, I did feel moral outrage while reading the sham arguments and outright lies in this book. This moral outrage is what motivated my review.

  35. Not a Jonkey's Gravatar Not a Jonkey
    June 5, 2012 - 3:21 am | Permalink

    What a cunning prick . But this is no joke . Look at the cover .What we will see is black educationalists (and their handlers ) promoting this into the school system as recommended for study .
    But doen’t this shyster Prinz game match so much of the historical constructs of the 20 century ? They create and promote lies and deception as truth and history to divide and confuse and conquer , which is what this book will do as we saw from the last article on too :http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/06/another-hate-industry-start-up-the-omar-thornton-memorial-fund/ .
    Stoking a false belief in decrimination and victimisation , by social disadvantage , created by whitemen ofcourse .
    This book in reality is a surreptitious insidious hate crime . Though the owner of this blog is an academic , I think the article lacks the moral outrage that should be accompanying this article .

    This egregious lie stood out for me :

    Jews don’t have an enduring tradition of representational art, because Jewish law prohibits representations of people, and European art production was controlled by wealthy Christian patrons for centuries. Once we move into modern times, Jews are not under-represented in art. Jewish artists include Camille Pissarro, Marc Chagall, Max Beckmann, Amedeo Modigliani, Man Ray, Frida Kahlo, Mark Rothko, Roy Lichtenstein, Robert Rauschenberg and Diane Arbus.[xxxi]Unfortunately for Prinz, three of the figures he cites to prove his case (Beckmann, Kahlo and Rauschenberg) had no Jewish ancestry at all. Pissarro was half-Jewish, while Ray and Arbus were photographers rather than painters. Regarding the artistic merits of Mark Rothko, I refer readers to my series of articles on Rothko posted on TOO last year (see here).

    These paragraphs are probably one for the Jewish educators to laugh about while the promote this pseudo science and attack the enemy .

  36. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    June 5, 2012 - 2:18 am | Permalink

    It’s worth considering an paper posted on the Amren site.

    Download and Save!

    Haplogroups as Evolutionary Markers of Cognitive Ability
    http://amren.com/news/2012/06/haplogroups-as-evolutionary-markers-of-cognitive-ability/

    Haplogroups as evolutionary markers of cognitive ability
    Heiner Rindermann a,⁎,1, Michael A. Woodley b,⁎,1, James Stratford c
    a Department of Psychology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Wilhelm-Raabe-Str. 43, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany
    b Department of Biochemistry, Ross University School of Medicine, Picard Estate, Portsmouth, Dominica
    c Independent Researcher

    https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/haprinderm.pdf

    a b s t r a c t
    Article history:
    Received 19 November 2011
    Received in revised form 5 March 2012
    Accepted 9 April 2012
    Available online xxxx
    Studies investigating evolutionary theories on the origins of national differences in intelligence have been criticized on the basis that both national cognitive ability measures and supposedly evolutionarily informative proxies (such as latitude and climate) are confounded with general developmental status. In this study 14 Y chromosomal haplogroups (N=47 countries) are employed as evolutionary markers. These are (most probably) not intelligence coding genes,but proxies of evolutionary development with potential relevance to cognitive ability. Correlations and regression analyses with a general developmental indicator (HDI) revealed that seven haplogroups were empirically important predictors of national cognitive ability (I,R1a, R1b, N, J1, E, T[+L]). Based on their evolutionary meaning and correlation with cognitive ability these haplogroups were grouped into two sets. Combined, they accounted in a regression and path analyses for 32–51% of the variance in national intelligence relative to the developmental indicator (35–58%). This pattern was replicated internationally with further controls (e.g. latitude, spatial autocorrelation etc.) and at the regional level in two independent samples (within Italy and Spain). These findings, using a conservative estimate of evolutionary influences, provide support for a mixed influence on national cognitive ability stemming from both current environmental and past environmental (evolutionary) factors.

  37. Lombard's Gravatar Lombard
    June 5, 2012 - 2:17 am | Permalink

    The artwork Orange, red, yellow by Mark Rothko fetches $86.9 million
    HYPERLINK
    He certainly is a genius!!

  38. katana's Gravatar katana
    June 5, 2012 - 2:09 am | Permalink

    Brenton Sanderson:
    In the final analysis, Prinz’s book is just another effort by the Jewish intellectual Left to sure up the weak conceptual foundations of multiculturalism with its anti-White “diversity” fetish. In attempting to sure up these foundations,
    ————-

    ‘shore up’

  39. JA's Gravatar JA
    June 5, 2012 - 1:32 am | Permalink

    Franklin Ryckaert:
    “Nothing is new in this book with its threadbare false arguments that makes it scientific value about as great as your average Lysenkoist treatise from the days of the Soviet Union. It is in fact a political work with a (hidden) ethnic agenda. That agenda is the age-old Jewish group evolutionary strategy of weakening the outgroup while strengthening the ingroup. For that purpose the idea of “equality” has to be sold to the dominant outgroup. There is no possibility of equality of superior with inferior groups. Still insisting on it and creating structures to try to achieve the impossible will only lead to one thing : the degradation of the superior group and that is exactly the purpose of it all.

    Of course among themselves and especially in Israel Jews do not practice “equality” nor do they believe in it. On the contrary Jews believe in their own genetic superiority and do everything in their power to maintain it.

    Were they really honest they wouldn’t object to miscegenation with Arabs or Blacks since “race is only a social construct”. Miscegenation on a mass scale with Blacks actually would solve the Jewish problem since it would lower their IQ to a comfortable 85. Imagine the whole Rothschild family consisting of such stupid mulattos, a blessing for the world!”

    How beautifully you put it! I always look forward to your posts.

    Your blood is worth bottling!

  40. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 5, 2012 - 1:31 am | Permalink

    This will be my last post here tonite…. I was in a jewish junk store today [seriously]…saw one of Kozols books [blaming whites and praising poor blacks]…I figure kozol HAS to be a jooish name.

    The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America by J Kozol………….he says our schools are apartheid…and we all know what South Africa is like now that we, the outsiders, have done away with apartheid.

    Kozol, Chumpsky,etcetc..we are all sick of them, yes class?

  41. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 5, 2012 - 1:27 am | Permalink

    OK, I am an artist so do not discount my opinion.
    Arbus and Rothko were geniuses.

    Both were NY joos who killed themselves.

  42. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 5, 2012 - 1:20 am | Permalink

    @katana:
    BUT, Jared is a talented storyteller [I didnt say scientist].
    Also the joo media ‘pushed’ the book.

  43. 90404's Gravatar 90404
    June 5, 2012 - 1:17 am | Permalink

    @Jerry Thompson:
    College students, libs, kids…
    I remember long ago Janie Cohen [my psych teacher] whining about Skockleys racism.

  44. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    June 5, 2012 - 12:38 am | Permalink

    @matthew:

    All I see here is a desperate and perverted search for identity, a search shaped by a sense of cultural paranoia, a cloying self-pity and a claustrophobic victimhood. Asolutely pathetic.

    Apart from the “search for identity”, this describes the Jewish mentality pretty well, especially the paranoia, self-pity and victimhood thing.
    A clear case of (Jewish) projection if there ever was one. And to call the search for identity of white people “perverted” is a chutzpah, because part of the Jewish strategy is exactly to deny any identity to Whites, this in order to be able to dispossess them. The same tactic is used by the Jews against the Palestinians : Palestinians “don’t exist” therefore Jews can take their land and expell them. Yes, “absolutely pathetic” and it shows who you are and what you want.

    Now about that Jew Michael Hart. You mention him of course to promote the idea “but doesn’t he show that all Jews are not bad?” and hence “perhaps Jews are not that bad after all”. Well, on closer inspection most of these socalled “good Jews” appear not so good after all.
    Yes, Hart is against dispossession of Whites and yes, Hart has written a book about racial differences in IQ ( Understanding Human History), but what are his motives? Hart belongs to that small minority of Jews who thinks that it is more in the interest of Jews to preserve Whites than to destroy them. He understands that majority-White and Christian nations have to offer the Jews more in terms of security, wealth and support-for-Israel than majority non-White or even Muslim nations. It is pure Jewish self-interest. It doesn’t mean that such Jews “love” Whites or have lost their paranoia for them. Hart for example caused a row at a conference of American Renaissance (a society that goes out of its way not to discriminate against Jews) when he called David Duke a “f*cking N*zi” when he mentioned Jewish control of the media. Hart later on attended a meeting of “pro-Whites” mainly by Jews and a few shabbos goys. That is an environment types like Hart can feel “safe” in. When Jews control such movements you can predict what will happen : never name the Jews, talk about “Liberals”, never talk about White genocide, talk about the “suicide of the West”. Such Jewish controlled movements promise to be as effective against Jewish destructive activism as J-street against AIPAC.

  45. Sector 19's Gravatar Sector 19
    June 5, 2012 - 12:17 am | Permalink

    “I don’t think we should let politics arbitrate in this case, however. I think naturists simply get the science wrong.”

    If it’s good for the the jews it’s “science”. If it’s not then you’re an anti-semite. Some scientist.

    In the end, the so-called science don’t matter. Whom you let dominate your academic establishment and media does. Fix that and you fix the problem. No PhD required.

  46. Wiggy's Gravatar Wiggy
    June 4, 2012 - 11:10 pm | Permalink

    @Alice Teller:

    It would be easy to do this with ‘different’ humans and throw in a gorilla, and post it. Easy enough.

  47. Wiggy's Gravatar Wiggy
    June 4, 2012 - 11:08 pm | Permalink

    This is HILARIOUS! Liberal perspectives on race/IQ/Human development are like a perpetual motion machine. Because they can NEVER come to the conclusion that genetics is the root cause of differences, they will perpetually FAIL to figure out why people are different! And they get paid for this? Another ‘perpetual’ “e-motion” (money) machine!
    God, it is hilarious!

  48. Alice Teller's Gravatar Alice Teller
    June 4, 2012 - 10:33 pm | Permalink

    @Bear:
    I agree, but it is in effect far, far beyond the academy. On Facebook there is a popular photo of three Labrador Retrievers, one light, one brown and one black, with the caption “tell us again we are different how? We don’t get it.” Just think about who produces this stuff to be readily available for distribution?

    Environmental science has been completely corrupted by the government funding of science research.

    The question of how we fight it is every way we can. Rather than insisting on absolute dedication to naming the Jew and beating people into submission we should be using every sensible way we can muster to seduce people to our side. If you are interesting in the environment keep raising the population problem presented by illegal immigration. Not based on race, but on the carrying capacity of the US.

    If we use a little imagination, truth offers all sort of possibilities. We can do this, but it is a hell of a job. We won’t get there by demanding that everyone immediately share our world view – right this minute!!!

  49. Bear's Gravatar Bear
    June 4, 2012 - 10:01 pm | Permalink

    Why are so many university chairs and even majors being funded with titles such as:
    Philosophy of Science,
    Ethics of Psychology,
    Ethics?

    It’s a new phenomena. They seem to function as Trojan horse platforms for the dissemination of liberal ethno-marxist friendly ideas.

    Furthermore they don’t even practice “Science” they practice what I would describe as “Metaphysics” wrapped up by rhetoric to look like it’s credible science based on empirical methods.

    The result is that inconvenient scientific research results can get spun out of the way.

    Moreover because Jews are good and often shameless at generating rhetorical verbiage they have found a niche here.

    Prinz doesn’t mention Richard Lynn or Rushton or McDonald. He doesn’t want to draw attention to these powerful authors which more intelligent readers will likely check out. and likely agree with.

    One doesn’t even have to be in a potentially contentious area of Science such as evolutionary psychology to feel the heat to be a threat.

    Consider Danish soft leftist statistician Bjørn Lomborg who published a beautifully written book called “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. It was full of reasoned argument, carefully presented data and statistics that showed that the environment of the world was not so badly off in many areas. He made no judgement on the Greenhouse effect but in a 20 page section questioned the radical measures being developed to deal with it.

    The magazine “Scientific American” conducted a rather viscous and unprecedented personal attack on him, initially denying him right of reply and then only granting him a 1/2 page.

    Scientific American editorial ship and regular columns are very heavily Jewish. It’s worse than the Jew York times and sadly it is widely distributed.

    Lomborg had inadvertently stepped on the new green-left linked Marxism which has seen the opportunity exploit the greenhouse crisis.

    Now I have no problem with radical protection of the environment. I do object to this kind of personality politics. One can already see how environmental arguments are being used to promote “one world government” and open borders immigration. Every humanitarian crisis (really caused by increasing African over population and normal weather patterns) are now promoted as caused by “climate change” for which we White westerners are responsible for and must therefore take in humanitarian immigrants.

    How do we deal with this?

    Our carefully prepared rational arguments, loaded with often laboriously accumulated statistics are buried under a mountain of mud a plethora of rhetoric and sweeping statements that generate doubt. The rational empirical arguments are time consuming to generate the rhetoric is easy to generate.

    Every rhetorical trick in the book is used; the “false dilemma” and the “straw man” in particular ad hominem .

    The answer is I feel as follows.
    1 Learn to write racier more entertaining ‘infotainment’ something to broaden the audience. Roger Schlafy’s “How Einstein Ruined Physics” is simply to dull for most readers and I (as an engineer) think its good. Perhaps learn to go ‘stealth’ with our arguments.
    2 Donate lots of money to pro-White causes (start with 1% of net income). This is because the anti-whites have marketing, distribution and profit for their own propaganda completely sewn up. We also need to promote the practice of donation to White causes to spread and grow our cause.

  50. Ted Riordan's Gravatar Ted Riordan
    June 4, 2012 - 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Uh…how come there are no Jewish guys on pro basketball teams? We’re all the same, after all. I have a wonderful suggestion. Let’s mandate that jews may only gain jobs in the same specific ratio as they are represented in the society at large. So, from now on, both Wall St. and Hollywood companies may only employ jews up to 2% of their total employees. Colleges the same 2%, including the elite schools. I’m serious about this, and we should all write our Congressman and demand that this 2% rule be implemented right away.

  51. matthew's Gravatar matthew
    June 4, 2012 - 9:45 pm | Permalink

    @Brenton Sanderson:

    Lol yes, thousands!!! Ok, I’m done. All I see here is a desperate and perverted search for identity, a search shaped by a sense of cultural paranoia, a cloying self-pity and a claustrophobic victimhood. Absolutly pathetic.

  52. Brenton Sanderson's Gravatar Brenton Sanderson
    June 4, 2012 - 9:25 pm | Permalink

    @matthew:

    I would have thought it was common knowledge among the readership of TOO that Hart is Jewish. No one claims that ALL Jews are fully signed up members of the Culture of Critique brigade. Jews who, like Hart, engage in honest intellectual inquiry have my respect. Unfortunately for every honest Jewish scholar like Hart there are thousands of others (like Prinz) engaged in the most shameless Jewish ethnic activism under the pretence of scholarship.

  53. katana's Gravatar katana
    June 4, 2012 - 9:22 pm | Permalink

    Jerry Thompson
    June 4, 2012 – 7:49 pm | Permalink
    Yet another Jewish liar. Yawn. They have to keep beating the same drum that we’re all the same, and that the browns and blacks are being held back by whitey.

    Who do these Hebes think they’re fooling, anyway?

    —————-
    Well said.

    Unfortunately, they are fooling the vast majority of Whites with this constant flow of propaganda. Whites seem susceptible to this, ‘We’re all the same’, BS because it appeals to our desire to be ‘nice’ and ‘fair’.

    Look how Jared Diamond’s crappy ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ book was lapped up.

  54. Jason Speaks's Gravatar Jason Speaks
    June 4, 2012 - 8:54 pm | Permalink

    @Michael Santomauro:

    Interesting article. A sliver of anti-White leftists who criticize Israel are doing it merely because, in some sense, they think of Jews as “White” and want to privilege non-Whites (Africans, etc.). These are quite often Whites who are themselves deeply anti-White. I think we need to separate that crowd from those who are pro-White and criticize Israel.

  55. Jerry Thompson's Gravatar Jerry Thompson
    June 4, 2012 - 7:49 pm | Permalink

    Yet another Jewish liar. Yawn. They have to keep beating the same drum that we’re all the same, and that the browns and blacks are being held back by whitey. There are some other IQ maps online, specifically IQ and GNP (you can guess how that looks) and on the comical note, IQ and penis size (inverse correlation).
    Who do these Hebes think they’re fooling, anyway?

  56. Church of Jed's Gravatar Church of Jed
    June 4, 2012 - 7:44 pm | Permalink

    who try to establish universal human dignity through the study of diversity

    “We tried to establish universal human dignity through the study of Diversity, and then we came upon the Knoxville Horror. We were forced to narrow our definition of ‘human dignity’ to exclude Diversity and began hating all those who insisted upon broadness.”

    -Rev. Jed DeValleyism,” Channon Christian is our anti Diversity Joan of Arc,” 2004

  57. matthew's Gravatar matthew
    June 4, 2012 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

    Is there a reason for not mentioning that one of the sources you use to (putatively) dismiss Prinz’s claims is Jewish himself (Michael Hart?)

  58. Michael Santomauro's Gravatar Michael Santomauro
    June 4, 2012 - 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Israel Interior Minister: Israel belongs to the white man

    http://cofcc.org/2012/06/israel-interior-minister-israel-belongs-to-the-white-man/

    Peace. 
    Michael Santomauro 
    New York City

  59. June 4, 2012 - 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Forty years ago, I met a professor from U.C. – Berkeley, who was on sabatical. He claimed that there was a project undertaken in one or two schools in Oakland, whereby the best teachers available were recruited and paid a substantial premium to teach in an “under-achieving” black school. The results, according to him, were dismal. After several years, there was no improvement in the academic performance of the students, in spite of having many of the best teachers in the state teaching.

    One of the barriers was language. The students used words as adjectives in their opposite or antonym meaning. Good was bad, warm was cool, etc. While ebonics has made huge incursions into English today, in the late 1960s it was virtually unheard of. Even black college athletes interviewed were polite, and spoke more clearly than the unintelligible blathering heard today from allegedly educated black “personalities” heard today.

    As for the DNA piece in this article suggesting no racial differences, why is sickle cell anemia a disease virtually exclusive to blacks? Why Jews suffer from higher rates of bowel cancer? Why are Jewish women considered at higher risk for breast cancer? Why is Hepatitus indemic in Asian populations with little of no health consequence?

    If we are all the same, why weren’t pianos invented in Africa, or valved brass instruments invented in Asia? Australian aborigines didn’t invent internal combustion engines.

    This doesn’t mean that these people are “lesser” humans from the perspective of having abilities. I would much rather have an Inuit guide me to the North Pole than Jesse J. Prinz or a higher IQ Chinese, irrespective of the difference in their IQs.

    Some races are better at some things than other races. So what? As my father used to say, someone has to sweep the floor. It is a job that has to be done, and is meaningful. Big educations aren’t needed.

    Where people like Prinz get traction with their arguments, is the whispering campaign, largely promoted by Jews, that people doing menial work are less worthy. This translates into a white with a big education sweeping the floor is racist, because blacks are smart enough to sweep the floor too. The purpose is to set blacks and whites at each other’s throats while they reap the benefit. All is in accordance with the Talmud directive to have us serve them.

  60. norman sunden's Gravatar norman sunden
    June 4, 2012 - 6:10 pm | Permalink

    As long as “THEY” control the MSM it really doesn’t matter which book is true. We all know which one will be promoted and which one will be buried.

  61. Norwegian's Gravatar Norwegian
    June 4, 2012 - 5:00 pm | Permalink

    Great article! Keep on exposing their lies and I’ll keep on sending a few monthly dollars your way!

  62. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    June 4, 2012 - 4:57 pm | Permalink

    Cochran & Harpending don’t say that the high IQ of Jewish Ashkenazim is the result of Jews having special eugenic practices such as marrying noted Talmudic scholars to the daughters of wealthy businessmen, and restricting the reproduction of poor Jews. Cochran & Harpending’s idea is that Jews’ occupations and endogamy imposed selection for IQ. They do not seem to have paid much attention to ‘ A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As a Group Evolutionary Strategy’.

  63. Sean's Gravatar Sean
    June 4, 2012 - 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Prinz’s argument — that there is more biological variation within races than between them — is an argument frequently leveled against race realists, and yet it is invalid. In his On Genetic Interests, Frank Salter has shown that the when world populations are sampled, genetic variance between groups is on average about 0.125—equivalent to the kinship between grandparent and grandchild. This is a far from trivial amount, and the result is that humans have an enormous genetic interest in their ethnic groups (or their race) compared to other groups.

    I don’t think this point can possibly be over-elaborated upon. A lot of people, and I’m freely including myself here, don’t fully understand the implications of the scientific discussions we hear. Given the modern attitude of skepticism, where people have to have explained to them why even such a basic human function as having children is important, it is necessary, if galling, to tell these people why they ought to care about their race, especially when they have accredited frauds like Prinz telling them that science has disproved the concept.

  64. Mickey Meadows's Gravatar Mickey Meadows
    June 4, 2012 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Great article. You can be sure that the talk of there being no racial differences, or no races at all, will dry up just as soon as whites have been nicely and completely dispossessed.

  65. Vlad Writes's Gravatar Vlad Writes
    June 4, 2012 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

    Mr Sanderson totally destroys “Professor Prinz” and his blatant advocacy of the jewish diversity fetish. Jewish intellectual dishonesty and self promotion cannot stand the truth put forth by hard working, intelligent white men.
    This site must be causing heartburn from New York to L.A.

  66. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    June 4, 2012 - 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Nothing is new in this book with its threadbare false arguments that makes it scientific value about as great as your average Lysenkoist treatise from the days of the Soviet Union. It is in fact a political work with a (hidden) ethnic agenda. That agenda is the age-old Jewish group evolutionary strategy of weakening the outgroup while strengthening the ingroup. For that purpose the idea of “equality” has to be sold to the dominant outgroup. There is no possibility of equality of superior with inferior groups. Still insisting on it and creating structures to try to achieve the impossible will only lead to one thing : the degradation of the superior group and that is exactly the purpose of it all.

    Of course among themselves and especially in Israel Jews do not practice “equality” nor do they believe in it. On the contrary Jews believe in their own genetic superiority and do everything in their power to maintain it.

    Were they really honest they wouldn’t object to miscegenation with Arabs or Blacks since “race is only a social construct”. Miscegenation on a mass scale with Blacks actually would solve the Jewish problem since it would lower their IQ to a comfortable 85. Imagine the whole Rothschild family consisting of such stupid mulattos, a blessing for the world!

  67. June 4, 2012 - 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Also, could we please have a moratorium on the optative mood?

    How many Jews could succeed in insinuating their counter-intuitive “bright ideas” if they weren’t, like Prof. Jewstein here, allowed to couch them in weaselly locutions like ‘we could have” or “there might indeed be” etc.?

    Whoops, answered my own question!

  68. June 4, 2012 - 3:29 pm | Permalink

    Man, that is one intense photo. In the interest of fairness, I’ll let some actual Jews respond:

    “He’s a real New York Jew” — Woody Allen, Annie Hall
    “He’s a real Jewy Jewstein” — Howard Stern, passim.

    Ben Stiller, Paul Krugman, now this guy. Do chicks really respond to that intense, beady-eyed fixed stare? They all look like psychopaths to me, which I guess is why, and how, they invented psychiatry.

Comments are closed.