According to economist article, Jews are genetically superior

The chinas, their self discipline and courage is something the rest of the world can only dream of.

Europeans are tactical and strategic.

Everything you say is true but its also really obvious and researchers who study intelligence have spent the last 50 years coming up with ways to control for most of it. To take a simple example, adoption studies are routinely used to control for family environment by looking at the performance of children from ethnic group X who have been raised by people from ethnic group Y. It is now almost certain that group IQ differences are not just a result of family upbringing/education/etc, the remaining question is whether they might be caused by more subtle things like stereotype threat.

I admire The Chinas as well, I also like The Europes and The Englands and I'm fond of The Spains.

Let's pretend it didnt happen.

I admire The Chinas as well, I also like The Europes and The Englands and I'm fond of The Spains.

Lulz, yes, let's!

I'm off to the Londons shortly.

I would say so, it's likely that throughout our separation we have developed slightly different gene pools, after all we know that due to various evolutionary pressures Africans are far more likely than Caucasians to have sickle cell anaemia, while Caucasians are a lot more prone to cystic fibrosis. This means, yes, we are different genetically and probably have slightly different organs (on average) to people of other races compared to people of your own race.

Not that it's noticeable, but it's a bit ignorant to say that races are genetically identical when there's probably even a genetic difference between the historical English upper class and lower class. (Note: not in a way that makes either superior, but in a purely chance way. Probably each could be identified through their genomes if we bothered to differentiate and study it, simply because the culture of breeding within your own class restricts the gene pool available, and the family pedigrees available, creating a small bottleneck which will cause differentiation.)

yes, but they have been discredited. I know people who have the same IQ as Einstein supposedly had, they may be the same in terms of IQ but certainly not intelligence.

So would say that it's unknown or unlikely that most of the 25-30K genes underwent any notable selection?

(BTW; I'm not saying that there is an identical gene distribution amongst races, obviously there is not. But when someone makes a claim about Genetics that I don't think has been established, I have an issue with that.)

When we are comparing allele distributions, it only makes sense if there are more than one form of a gene. The huge problem I see is that we don't have any genes, let alone different alleles which contribute to IQ. The article in the OP just came up with a possible mechanism by which these alleles could be selected for, as an explanation for something which there is a reasonable chance does not even exist.

There have been very few generations separation between every human on the planet, and it's hard enough to distinguish any genetic component that contribute to IQ. I'd be surprised if there was anything like the selection pressure people seem to think there was.

So would say that it's unknown or unlikely that most of the 25-30K genes underwent any notable selection?

(BTW; I'm not saying that there is an identical gene distribution amongst races, obviously there is not. But when someone makes a claim about Genetics that I don't think has been established, I have an issue with that.)

When we are comparing allele distributions, it only makes sense if there are more than one form of a gene. The huge problem I see is that we don't have any genes, let alone different alleles which contribute to IQ. The article in the OP just came up with a possible mechanism by which these alleles could be selected for, as an explanation for something which there is a reasonable chance does not even exist.

There have been very few generations separation between every human on the planet, and it's hard enough to distinguish any genetic component that contribute to IQ. I'd be surprised if there was anything like the selection pressure people seem to think there was.

I don't know if intelligence is affected by genetics at all. It could be, it might not be. I don't think we know enough about the development of the central nervous system yet-it's very possible the "intelligence" we get is due to nurture not genetics.

You're talking nonsense. IQ has never been discredited except by leftists who think that everyone is born equal. Most psychologists and scientists believe IQ to be a very good indicator of natural intelligence. Also, the argument that IQ tests are culturally biased does not hold water since for the past few decades IQ tests have been developed that are completely abstract and therefore do not confer cultural disadvantages.

I'm sorry but that's just complete nonsense. The different human races have been separated for hundreds of thousands of years. The neanderthals became a separate species from homo sapiens in less than 500 000 years. The difference between africans and europeans for example is at least 120 000 years. How is that 'very few' generations? In evolution terms that would be enough to create a new species depending on how strong evolutionary pressures were.

Thank you for those - though the third one didn't work. I think, as you say, it's especially significant that the highest gains appear to be in the most 'g-loaded' areas...

Would you then argue that general 'intelligence' is rising, or that it's simply an increased aptitude for taking tests? Or would you say that, in this context, the two can be seen as largely synonymous?

Of course anyone with a basic knowledge of biology and/or psychology wouldn't ever claim that genetics doesn't have a role to play in intelligence - how could it not? - but it's equally foolish to suggest that environmental factors aren't equally conducive to intelligence level.

regards to my suggestion that it could be interpreted as a contradiction, I suppose that's true - however, that means it's imperative that intelligence (and, hence, I.Q.) aren't seen as a fixed entity, but a 'fluid' one - that is to say, absolutist determinism is a rather silly position to take in light of this evidence.

I think that it's also worth noting, as you say, that there are a number of different I.Q. tests, many of which are a waste of time at best and fraudulent at worst

anti-fascist, really means massive racist.

"Humans often categorize themselves in terms of race or ethnicity, sometimes on the basis of differences in appearance (meaning racial classfications are based on the way we look). Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa. Race and ethnicity are among major factors in social identity giving rise to various forms of identity politics, e.g., racism.
There is no scientific consensus of a list of the human races , and few anthropologists endorse the notion of human "race" . Genetic studies have substantiated the absence of clear biological borders, thus the term "race" is rarely used in scientific terminology, both in biological anthropology and in human genetics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Race_and_ethnicity

Anthropologists are not real scientists.

1. THE INTERNET IS FULL OF FILTH.
Ephraim Wachsman, who seemed to me to be the keynote speaker due to the high percentage of English he could work into his sentences, cited a "scientific study" done six years ago that found that "36% of websites are filth."

Now, I'm guessing by "filth" he meant porn, although the p-word was never uttered from the stage, but it wasn't just about porn. The incidental filth can be just as seductive, apparently. Things like banner ads, or just subtle temptations, and non-religious thinking. At the very root of it, most of the media and information on the internet falls outside of the realm of ultra-Orthodox study (which mostly surrounds the Torah and Talmud, and other texts closely related to those books), and therefore is to be viewed with deep suspicion. Also, though: porn.

Even communication and social media can be minefields: for instance, if you're not supposed to interact with women, then Facebook is probably a place you want to avoid. Nothing so specific was said, at least in English, but it was pretty easy to gather.

Ultimately, most of the rabbis coalesced around the idea that the internet should be avoided whenever possible, and that it probably doesn't belong in a home at all. When it's being used, hopefully only for work purposes, it should have a filter on it. But even with a filter, it was important to be careful: "filters don't really work," warned one rabbi.

I really think it is cultural as opposed to genetic.

I also believe in the IQ threshold, apart from certain fields, your IQ only needs to be so high before other factors become more important such as work ethic or the ability to take initiative. So its a bit of a moot point.