Time To End Affirmative Action
An Evolutionary Argument

Bob Francis
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2012

Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
What’s At Stake
Black IQ
Suppressing The Truth
The Brain And IQ
Genetics
Evolution
Evolution Of Higher Caucasian Intelligence
History Of Black Achievement
Conclusion
Introduction
_______________________
America’s institutions should resemble the color of its population. This, according to the prevailing American paradigm on race, should be the goal of a racially just society. The purveyors of truth in academia and the media would have us believe that on a level playing field, where persons of different skin color treated each other fairly, blacks would succeed proportionately to their 12% composition of the population. They assure us that in a world free of racial bias, 12% of Harvard students, Fortune 500 CEOs, Ivy League college faculty, and Pulitzer prize-winning journalists would be black. It is a fundamental tenet of liberal ideology that until blacks achieve this kind of socioeconomic equality with whites then America must be construed as racist. 
One method of trying to remedy the ‘injustice’ of disparate racial outcomes has been affirmative action. For the past half century, governments at the federal, state, and local level have enforced preferential treatment for blacks in an effort to balance the racial ratios. While overall the results have been fallen short of expectations, affirmative action has undeniably expanded economic opportunities for blacks and substantially raised black average income. Without much fanfare, the Obama administration continues to make affirmative action a top priority. In 2011, for instance, the president issued yet another executive order requiring federal agencies to increase ‘diversity’ in the federal work force, despite the fact that blacks are already substantially overrepresented in the federal bureaucracy relative to their percentage of the population. 
Nevertheless, the significant advantage that affirmative action affords blacks has still not produced equality of outcome with whites. Blacks still trail significantly in rates of employment, average income, participation in the professions, and many other measurements of socioeconomic achievement targeted by affirmative action. While some cite this as proof of the need for even more government intervention to remedy racial disparities, others have begun to wonder how long we must endure race-based preferential treatment. Most people would agree that the early efforts to integrate blacks through government intervention were a necessary temporary measure to overcome entrenched racism. However, over the past 50 years, the cultural shift toward embracing diversity has eliminated discrimination in the work place, blacks are integrated into every facet of American life, and members of all races have the opportunity to achieve the American dream. Yet the fact remains, five decades after affirmative action began, America still needs preferential treatment to artificially bolster the statistics of black achievement, and this should serve as a red flag that our assumptions about equal racial ability need to be re-examined.
In light of overwhelming scientific evidence, it is reasonable to reassess affirmative action by confronting its fundamental premise, to wit, that blacks have the same capacity for achievement as whites. Currently, the American dogma on race brooks no alternative viewpoint: blacks and whites are born with identical innate abilities, and experience unequal outcomes only because they encounter different environmental influences. According to this line of reasoning, if blacks and whites lived under identical conditions, then there would be no observable differences in socioeconomic outcomes. However, despite the air of confidence with which such claims are put forth, many within the scientific community dismiss the theory of equal racial ability as nothing more than wishful thinking. The egalitarian hypothesis that unequal racial outcomes are an aberration relies upon a critical premise, namely, that the full range of human abilities is distributed equally among racial groups. But we are correct to be very skeptical of this assumption given the evolutionary backdrop that gave rise to racial differences. Over the course of tens of thousands of years during which the races were located on separate continents and evolving independently, blacks and whites developed hundreds of readily identifiable physiological differences. As the rest of this book will argue, there is every reason to believe that during the time of evolutionary separation, the races also evolved different levels of intelligence. 
This book argues that affirmative action should be opposed on the grounds that African Americans are genetically endowed with lower average IQ. Intelligence is important because, as numerous empirical studies have demonstrated, career success and high income go hand in hand with good cognitive ability. When a racial group has lower average intelligence, it will see fewer of its members experience socioeconomic success and will therefore compare unfavorably to a higher IQ group on statistics of achievement. This is the case with black Americans. Because they inherit the genes for lower IQ, African Americans will invariably rank below whites on statistics of scholastic performance, membership in high paying professions, and any other endeavor where above average intelligence offers a competitive advantage. Biology, not racism, gives rise to disparate racial outcomes. Thus, the evidence demonstrating lower innate black IQ – which is presented in this book – refutes the claim that affirmative action is a necessary evil that society must tolerate in order to overcome white racism. 
The reason most Americans revolt against this explanation is not for a lack of evidence. There is a mountain of proof demonstrating the truth about racial differences in IQ. It is the mainstream media’s unrelenting barrage of misinformation that misleads the American public into buying into the myth of white racism. In addition, there is almost nowhere that inquiring minds can turn to for reliable information on race. The public school systems, local libraries, universities, and even the Internet offer precious little objective information about race undistorted by the lens of political correctness. Conveying the truth to main street America can be a nearly impossible task. In 1994 Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray raised a public firestorm with the publication of The Bell Curve. Arguably the most notable attempt to educate Americans about racial IQ, the book contained one chapter that discussed the racial IQ gap and it provoked knee-jerk accusations of racism and unflinching vilification of its authors. Almost 20 years later, no substantive progress has been made to enlighten the public about this issue.
The purpose of this book is to try to bridge the gap between what Americans believe about racial intelligence and what science has to tell us about the subject, in the hopes that a more comprehensive explanation will prove more convincing to a highly skeptical public. Intended for a lay audience, this book presents the multidisciplinary evidence in a straightforward and simplified manner. We begin by examining the psychological studies showing that genes are the cause of lower black IQ. Blacks have underperformed whites on IQ tests for over a hundred years – ever since IQ testing began – and we look at the best available evidence for and against a genetic explanation. As we will see, the totality of the evidence, when assessed objectively, leaves us no grounds to suspect that blacks are endowed with the same genes as whites for higher IQ.
This leads us to address the question of why blacks have lower average IQ. While the empirical evidence is compelling, it is not fully convincing because it does not reveal how the races developed different averages for the trait of intelligence. Chapter 3 looks at the real source of individual IQ differences, the human brain. We consider the neurological basis of cognitive ability and outline a model of the mind used by cognitive scientists to understand how thinking works. With an understanding of how the mind operates to produce intelligent thought, we are able to examine the ways that differences in brain structures can lead to differences in IQ, both among individuals and between racial groups.
Chapters four through six tell the story of how Caucasians evolved higher IQ. We begin by looking at genes – the root cause of IQ differences – and explain how they represent the architectural blueprints for constructing a human body – including the brain – from conception to maturity. Chapter 5 continues the discussion by outlining some fundamental concepts of evolution and explaining how the natural environment pressures gene pools to change over time. With a knowledge of basic evolutionary principles, we can more easily picture how evolution is able to push a population’s gene pool toward higher IQ. With that in mind, chapter 6 focuses on the divergent evolutionary paths taken by the black and white populations that ultimately led to racial IQ differences. For tens of thousands of years the races – separated by geographical barriers that prevented them from exchanging genes – lived in very different environments and evolved many distinctive physiological and behavioral features. We follow the evolutionary path that led Caucasians to evolve a brain more highly refined for complex thinking and higher IQ. Finally, chapter 7 provides support for this evolutionary argument with a comprehensive look at the historical record of black accomplishment. We will see that relatively lower black achievement is not a malady inflicted upon blacks by modern American culture, but is evident throughout the historical record dating back at least 40,000 years.
In the pages that follow, we will also discuss the urgent need to establish a reasoned dialogue on this issue. We will show that far from benign, affirmative action harms our aspirations for creating a meritocracy and promotes government paternalism at the expense of individual freedom. In addition, we will discuss the concerted effort – in academia and the media – to suppress the truth about lower black IQ. The evidence for innate racial IQ differences is so convincing that opponents cannot refute it, they can only try to cover it up. But there is no reason to tolerate this state of affairs, since the evidence exists to expose the falsehoods. By acknowledging the reality of racial differences in IQ, we can dispel the myth that affirmative action is a temporary measure, and that someday black cognitive ability and achievement rates will rise to the level of whites, and thereby obviate the need for preferential treatment. Because genetics endow blacks with lower intelligence, affirmative action is a permanent fixture in American society until we summon the fortitude to confront the reality of lower black IQ. The sooner we come to grips with this issue, the sooner we can end the insidious practice of using skin color to justify discrimination based upon race. 




.
References
_______________________
1) Obama: Whites Need Not Apply, The Washington Times, 4/19/2011
1. What’s At Stake
_______________________
In an increasingly polarized America, the issue of racial intelligence is becoming more pertinent. The traditional American values of limited government, individual responsibility, and economic freedom are under assault, and in their place, progressive government partners with citizens to try to solve life’s everyday challenges. But embracing government paternalism comes at a price, as massive bureaucracies seek to influence every aspect of individual behavior. For those who believe that big government hinders economic mobility and individual liberty, and constitutes an impediment to the good life, the failure to come to terms with lower black IQ is an overlooked reason why they continue losing ground to the socialist agenda.
That is because the liberal left has adopted race as its primary rationale for transitioning America toward socialism. As author David Horowitz has warned, the leftist agenda to replace the private sector emanates from the leftists who permeate academia, and who circuitously use the quest for racial equality as a pretext for transformation. (1) Undeterred by the failure of 20th century socialism, today’s Marxists use race as a lightning rod to gain support for their utopian agenda. America, they tell us, is racist to the core, and its institutions need to be radically changed. How can America’s sickness be cured? The same remedy as before: replacing choices made by individuals with directives issued by bureaucrats. Under the guise of overcoming racism, they seek to expand state control over social and economic affairs, and impose order over chaos by managing the affairs of society rationally.
It is a philosophy fully embraced by the Democratic Party. In a country where race has become inextricably intertwined with the politics of who gets what, black support for the Democratic Party exceeds 95%. Democratic politicians, obliged to cater to their most dependable voting bloc, work hard to keep alive the myth of white racism. Portraying America as fundamentally unfair, and promising redistributive justice, they enlist black support by offering programs to help with every aspect of their lives. Formerly the party of the working class, Democrats have shifted their focus to African American and other minority voters with promises of expanding the welfare state. (2) But Democratic efforts to cultivate dependency have implications for all Americans. As a result of a burgeoning welfare state, an ever larger segment of the population becomes dependent upon government. Today, for example, almost 50 million Americans, or one-sixth of the population, are dependent upon food stamps and 11 million working-age Americans are collecting disability. (3)
Leading the socialist charge in the nation’s capitol is the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). As of 2011, the all-black organization included 41 U. S. House and Senate members, 40 of whom were Democrats and card carrying members of the Socialist Party of America. Viewing paternalistic government as the best way to improve the lives of black Americans, the CBC’s zeal for spending knows no bounds. In September of 2011 outspoken CBC member Maxine Waters, in search of a way to jolt the economy and create jobs, called for yet another Trillion dollars of new federal spending. When House Republicans forced President Obama to accept a budget with modestly reduced federal spending, CBC chairman Eldredge Cleaver labeled the bill a “Satan Sandwich”. Andre Carson, another CBC member, speaking at a town hall meeting in 2011, decried the fiscally conservative Tea Party movement as racist and accused its adherents of wanting to lynch blacks. Members of the CBC regard any attempt to reign in massive spending and restore fiscal sanity as a direct attack on blacks.
Their goal is to bring blacks as close as possible to socioeconomic parity with whites, which a majority of blacks now regard as the definition of racial equality. Most blacks regard statistical differences in income and wealth between blacks and whites as proof that they are members of an oppressed class. They also believe that it is government’s job to even things up by giving them a larger share of the economic pie. According to a 2010 survey by Edison Research, 60% of black voters want government to do more to solve social problems. (4) In other words, most blacks want even more government assistance on top of the already massive social welfare spending already in place. They correctly believe that the route to greater economic equality with whites lies in expanded government control over the private sector, so that wealth can be distributed along racial lines.
No other group is more dependent on government assistance than blacks. According to Department of Health and Human Services statistics, blacks use temporary assistance for needy families at 6 times the white rate. (5) Blacks also make up a disproportionate share of Medicaid and food stamp recipients, and according to a study by Washington University, 90% of all black children will depend upon food stamps at some point before reaching the age of 20. (6) In addition, blacks receive the lion’s share of public housing and rent subsidies. Because the statistics on preferential treatment are shrouded in secrecy, we cannot accurately assess to what extent blacks benefit from affirmative action. We do know that the practice is ubiquitous and it starts with the federal government. Although comprising only 10% of the total American work force, blacks make up 17% of the federal work force, thanks to the federal government’s deliberate effort to reduce black unemployment. (7) State and local governments emulate the effort to raise black employment by routinely allocating jobs on a preferential basis. And, of course, the racial hiring practices of the private sector are carefully monitored by the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Corporations whose labor pool does not mirror the racial makeup of the community at large risk a lawsuit by the EEOC. It is not a stretch to say that the American effort to uplift blacks permeates the economy.
The highest aspiration of black victimology is for a colossal wealth transfer, in the name of slavery reparations, from the United States government to blacks. Attorney Randall Robinson, explaining the rationale for this scheme in his national bestselling book The Debt, argues that race relations in America can never be harmonious until blacks receive monetary compensation for slavery. He contends that it is the aftershock of slavery that has rendered today’s blacks unable to compete with whites. For example, he acknowledges that of the 24 counties in the state of Maryland, the two with majority black populations perform lowest on standardized tests. He denies it has anything to do with natural ability. “Blacks scored behind in the two counties because of slavery’s lasting legacy to them”, he assures us. He would have his readers believe that in every other way that blacks statistically trail whites, slavery is to blame, and the only viable remedy is to pay them for damages. (8)
This hope for a windfall is alive and well within the black community. In February 2011, at a debate among Chicago mayoral candidates, politico Rahm Emanual incurred the wrath of Chicago’s black Democratic leaders when he voiced support for reparations, but also expressed skepticism for its viability given budgetary constraints in the midst of a recession. This did not sit well with Chicago community activist and mayoral candidate Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins. "When I hear Rahm Emanuel talking about a budget deficit when we're talking about reparations, to me that's offensive. This country was built on our backs, the backs of our ancestors. They bled, they died, they came in chains and they died in pain. So don't talk to me about budget deficits right now. Not on this subject." Steeped in black victimology, activists like Pelt-Watkins see no higher purpose for the public treasury than paying out more money to African Americans. (9)
While most conservatives scorn the idea of reparations, they do not entirely reject the notion that blacks are victims deserving of compensation. The statistics on black crime, poverty, and educational ‘failure’ demand an explanation, and most white Americans have a sense that in some ill-defined way white society is responsible. While most whites regard themselves as racially color blind, they suspect that, somewhere, there are anonymous white Americans who harbor racist sentiments and deliberately sabotage blacks. Their suspicions influence their political stances. Even if they disagree ideologically with government paternalism and wealth redistribution, they are sympathetic to the need for social welfare when it comes to helping blacks.
Given the one-dimensional portrayal of race presented in the media, it is difficult for the average American to believe otherwise. Virtually every media outlet depicts the issue of race using the same liberal template, characterizing blacks as victims and whites as oppressors.  Jennifer Graves, a liberal professor at Cornish college in Washington, epitomizes the liberal elitist view of race in her article entitled “Deeply Embarrassed White People Talk Awkwardly About Race”. Look at the statistics, she implores. Blacks have lower graduation rates, lower rates of home ownership, lower rates of insurance coverage, higher rates of school suspension, higher unemployment, higher incarceration rates and higher rates of homelessness. By any statistical measurement, when the two groups are compared, blacks come up short. (10)
Ms. Grave’s blames these offensive statistics squarely on the racism of middle class whites. You may work hard, pay your taxes, raise a family, and strongly support the ideal of equality for all, regardless of race, but the fact that you are white makes you racist. Not turn-of-the-19th century racism with white hoods and burning crosses, but the modern equivalent. It is subconscious racism, it leads to subtle acts of unintentional discrimination, and it is ultimately to blame for the dysfunction within black communities across America. Blacks would be thriving if white Americans were not so prejudiced.
The only reason an absurd argument like this goes unchallenged is because it is about race. In reality, Jim crow is an historical curiosity, every American institution is racially inclusive, and African Americans have the highest standard of living and best educational opportunities of any black population in the world. With the exception of isolated incidents that the media immediately dramatizes, there is no institutional racism left in America. Consequently, the only way liberals can perpetuate the notion that blacks are victims is to argue that racism has gone underground and is carried out conspiratorially. White people, professor Graves asserts, are “non-racist racists”, meaning that while they do not believe in racial superiority, their subconscious prejudices lead them to unintentionally victimize black people. Nowhere in her analysis does Ms. Graves ever mention the fact that blacks are substantially less intelligent than whites and discuss the impact that this has on their socioeconomic status.
The liberal left will never let go of the white-guilt sledgehammer. They employ the term racist as the medieval church used the terms heretic and witch to brand those who challenged its authority. They use their weapon to intimidate the average American into avoiding frank discussions about race. Black activists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used it to browbeat corporations into paying out millions in order to avoid being publicly denounced as racist. More disturbingly, leftists use it to influence the policy making of elected officials. When those on the left introduce the issue of race into the debate, conservative politicians often compromise their principles of limited government and fiscal restraint. No elected official, regardless of party, can afford to be viewed as insensitive on the issue of race. Faced with the wrath of the NAACP and other black advocacy groups, conservative politicians are reluctant to vigorously oppose large social welfare programs or to advocate deep cuts in government spending. When a staunch conservative does stand fast on principle, the liberal media uses the power of the press to raise questions about their commitment to racial equality and overcoming black poverty. Should the liberal media decide to make a spectacle out of them, it can undermine their reputation and career. To be sure, conservatism still exists, but the issue of race has shifted the political center so far to the left that true conservatism is now portrayed as racism disguised as ideology.
But tolerating the myth of white racism and allowing racial misinformation to go unanswered has proven to be very costly. The effort to elevate the population of American blacks to the same socioeconomic level as whites, while indisputably raising the outcome for blacks, has lowered the bar for society as a whole with unfortunate consequences. It shows up in education, the work place, the civil service and in every other social institution where government intervention tries to overcome lower black intelligence.
One need only consider the federal government’s poorly conceived No Child Left Behind act (NCLB). The primary rationale for implementing NCLB was to reduce the large educational achievement gap between blacks and whites. For years, liberal educators accused the American education system of racism, citing the pronounced disparity in racial achievement. Political elites, lacking an understanding of the evidence for lower black IQ, seriously believed that they could close the racial gap by compelling school systems to raise black performance. In 2002 President Bush signed the ill-fated NCLB into law; it mandated that by 2014 schools make 100% of their students, regardless of color, able to achieve a passing grade on federally approved standardized tests in reading and math. The penalties for failure were stiff, including dismissal of teachers and shutting down of schools.
The foreseeable consequence of trying to enforce a single standard for a mixed-race school population was an educational disaster. According to Harvard trained Doctor of Education Monty Neill, deputy director of The National Center For Fair and Open Testing, "NCLB is demonstrably unable to produce sustained and significant improvements even on a standardized test in the two subjects on which it focuses, reading and math. It also fails to make a real dent in the wide gaps between whites, African Americans and Latinos." (11) Ten years after it was enacted, NCLB failed to accomplish any discernible reduction in the white-black gap on the SAT, the ACT, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and other nationally standardized tests. For example, between 2005 and 2011 the SAT score gap between blacks and whites not only failed to diminish, it actually increased from a 200 point white advantage to a 208 point white advantage. (19) If anything, NCLB is a stark reminder that the biological roots of the black-white achievement gap cannot be overcome through social engineering. In 2011, after the Department of Education warned that 82% of the nation’s school districts were in peril of not meeting the goals of NCLB, the Obama administration issued an executive order reversing many of the act’s requirements and in 2012 exempted ten states from NCLB altogether.
The social cost of ignoring the racial IQ gap, and striving for racial parity, is brought home by America’s declining educational preparedness. Among industrialized nations, American students now rank 17th in reading, 24th in science, and 30th in math in the world on standardized international test scores, even though America’s per pupil spending dwarfs many of the countries that outscore it. (12) Japan, Singapore, China, South Korea, and many European countries outpace American students in the critical fields of engineering, science, and math, precisely the areas America cannot afford to fall behind on if it is to remain internationally competitive. With America’s future prosperity hanging in the balance, a greater proportion of American students are graduating from high school inadequately prepared and in need of remedial training upon entering college. Between 2006 and 2011, with NCLB in full implementation, the SAT scores of America’s college-bound students trended downward. (19)
The lesson of NCLB is that a nation cannot improve its education system by lowering standards. Under NCLB, school systems place all students on the same educational trajectory and assign the same priority to the top 25% and the bottom 25% of the cognitive range. Many schools now put overachievers and underachievers in the same classroom, where teachers must spend more time helping students who are challenged by the core curriculum to insure they can pass the standardized tests. Meanwhile, they neglect the brightest students who, having easily mastered the basic curriculum, are deemed to require no additional attention. It is a system that promotes mediocrity among the best students, without improving the prospects of the least academically inclined. A study by the Fordham Institute determined that many students who show early promise, and score in the top 10% of standardized test scores in the early grades, end up fading nearer to mediocrity by the time they graduate from high school. The degraded education of good students might be excused if it were compensated by improving that of the less talented students, but such is not the case. The same study shows that the bottom half of the student population do not improve their educational position and end up in the bottom half where they started. (13)
There is a reasonable solution to the dilemma of helping every student reach their potential, and it adds no cost to the educational system: tracking students based upon their ability. When schools place students of similar ability in the same classroom, teachers can instruct them at a pace appropriate to their capacity for learning. They can set higher expectations and challenge brighter students with more demanding material that will better prepare them for college. Those unable to keep up can be placed with students in their learning bracket without fear of appearing incompetent to faster learners. It is a simple solution that gives the best students a better chance at academic excellence. Unfortunately, the liberal educational establishment eschews such a simple solution because it would mean accepting the fact that blacks will be overrepresented in the lowest tier and significantly underrepresented in the college bound group; exactly the outcome liberals claim to be racist. America’s refusal to acknowledge the truth about lower black intellectual ability, and misguided pursuit of equal racial outcomes, deprives students at all ability levels from the kind of educational experience that would allow them to optimize their potential.
We see a similar degradation of standards when it comes to hiring in the work place. Most preferential hiring occurs behind closed doors, hidden from the public eye. However, civil service hiring offers a glimpse into the insidious nature of affirmative action because it occurs in full public view. Throughout the country, police and fire departments administer civil service exams, in an attempt to objectively identify the best candidates for employment and promotion, without regard to race. As with all tests that measure cognitive ability, black applicants who take the exams underperform whites by a significant margin and consequently fail to get selected. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the Obama administration is currently forcing cities throughout the country to lower standards in order to increase black representation. For example, the Dayton, Ohio police department exam originally excluded candidates who could not score at least 66% on part A and 72% on part B of the test. Because so few blacks qualified, in March of 2011 the Department of Justice compelled the city to lower the passing scores to 58% and 63%, thereby clearing the way to hire less qualified blacks. (14)
Predictably, this kind of social engineering has a tangible impact on a community’s quality of life. University of Maryland economist John Lott discovered the tragic consequences of affirmative action when he analyzed the hiring practices of police forces around the country. He found that cities that engaged in racially preferential hiring experienced a 4.8% rise in murder and a 4% rise in property crime rates. (15) William McGowan, a Washington Times reporter, details how a spate of affirmative action hiring in police departments throughout the country resulted in incompetency and a skyrocketing level of corruption. In a well-documented frenzy of affirmative action hiring, the Washington DC police department in the 1990s reduced the criteria on its entrance exams to 3rd grade levels and omitted criminal background checks in order to increase the percentage of blacks. The biggest losers were the mostly black victims of crime. Incompetent police officers – many of whom could not even correctly fill out police reports – so badly botched criminal investigations that judges dismissed thousands of cases and had no choice but to release dangerous criminals back onto the streets. Corruption by DC police officers became so rampant that the FBI had to set up a special task force to clean up the department. Similar meltdowns happened in other large cities including New Orleans, Buffalo, Atlanta, Houston, and St. Louis. Certainly affirmative action diversifies the skin color of the work force, but the public pays for it on the back end when incompetency and substandard performance degrade performance to unacceptable levels. (16)
And it was a lowering of standards that led to the mortgage crisis that collapsed the stock market and ushered in the recession of 2008. Liberal Democrats first began accusing banks of discrimination back in the 1970s, pointing to the disproportionate rejection of black mortgage applications. These social progressive ignored the reality that very few black applicants had sufficient income, down payment, or credit history to qualify for a loan based upon the banks’ race-neutral lending standards. Nonetheless, in an effort to increase black home ownership, the federal government enacted the Community Reinvestment Act. The new regulations forced banks to lower lending standards and increase minority lending, or face severe civil fines and possible criminal prosecution. During the 1990s and 2000s, under the more lenient standards, the banks lent trillions to people of all races, often with no verifiable income or credit worthiness, knowing that much of the money would never be repaid. When millions of families stopped making payments on their loans, it brought the entire financial system to the brink of collapse. Without this lowering of standards the mortgage crisis would not have happened. (20)
The ultimate lowering of standards is the abandonment of a commitment to a meritocracy and fundamental fairness. We cannot get around the fact that promoting blacks on the basis of skin color cheats whites who are more qualified. According to a recent study by the Harvard University, white Americans feel more discriminated against than blacks, and not surprisingly feel that affirmative action comes at their expense. (17) Because the practice of preferential treatment is so widespread, we can safely surmise that a significant percentage of white Americans have at some point been passed over for less qualified blacks, albeit without their knowledge.
For example, one can understand white resentment when considering the quota system established by the California Highway Transportation Department (CALTRANS). In conjunction with the Obama administration, CALTRANS has arranged to set aside 6.75% of all contracts for federally funded highway projects for minority-owned businesses despite the fact that white-owned businesses can do the work at lower cost with better results. Indisputably, CALTRANS is not protecting minority firms from discrimination because the agency with the hiring responsibility, CALTRANS itself, would not have fought tooth and nail to overcome significant legal challenges to implementing its quota system if it were inclined to discriminate. Thus, as is true in all cases where affirmative action is practiced today, there is no allegation affirmative action is needed to protect minorities against entrenched racism. Nor is there any evidence that the owners of the minority businesses come from underprivileged backgrounds, or that they have suffered discrimination in the past. The only justification for this reverse discrimination is that under race-neutral practices, with the job awarded to the lowest competent bidder, only 3% of the contracts were going to minority firms. Obviously, the only discrimination taking place is against white business owners who lose out on lucrative contracts for no other reason than because of the color of their skin. (18)
Conservatives can no longer allow the chimera of white racism to go unchallenged if we are to remain a free and prosperous society. As the remainder of this book will establish, there is no room for doubt that genes are the cause of lower black cognitive ability. Tolerating the lie of equal racial ability, while seemingly benign, merely aids left wing radicals in their struggle to implement socialism. Using the specter of white racism as an excuse, they have a powerful rationale for transforming government, legitimizing the welfare state, redistributing wealth, and engineering outcomes to achieve “racial fairness”. The myth of white racism also provides justification for compromising any traditional value – including constitutional principles – because the evil of racism is a higher priority. The reality is that in a free market system no amount of social engineering or affirmative action will ever accomplish equal racial outcomes because the races do not have equal abilities. Equal racial outcomes are a possibility only when the government eliminates competition, controls the economy and distributes goods and services equally.
Reversing the slide toward statism requires a willingness to combat the egalitarian fiction with the truth about lower black intelligence. All Americans should reject the falsehood that white people are responsible for black poverty and lower IQ. We should fervently resist attempts to lower standards in order to balance racial outcomes, and refuse to be silenced over fear of being labeled racist. When liberals try to justify recklessly wasteful spending policies on grounds of alleviating social injustice, we should combat their baseless allegations with the truth. When they cite statistics which allegedly prove that blacks are victims of racism, we should challenge these assertions with the evidence of lower black IQ. Where they insist upon expanding the role of government to insure racial fairness, we must not shrink from rebutting that rationale with the evidence that their allegations of entrenched white racism are without merit. Instead, we must have confidence that all Americans – regardless of race – are best served when traditional standards are upheld and the fundamental American principles of individualism and free markets are preserved.
References
_______________________
1. Horowitz, D., Hating Whitey, Spence Publishing Company, P. 84, 1999
2. Edsall, Thomas B., Campaign Stops, New York Times, Nov 27, 2011
3. Izzo, Phillip, Some 15% of Americans Uses Food Stamps, Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2011
4. Non-Whites, Whites Hold Divergent Views, National Journal, January 7, 2010
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Characteristics and Financial Condition of AFDC Recipients, Fiscal Year 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992)
6. Plotkin, Greg, 90% of Black Children on Food Stamps, change.org, November 05, 2009
7. Woog, Dan, Federal Workforce Diversity: Why Agencies Seek Out Minority Workers, Monster.com
8. Robinson, R., The Debt, Plume Publishing,  P. 75
9. The Huffington Post, Rahm Emanuel Reparations Remark Draws Flak At Chicago Mayoral Debate, 2/10/2011
10. Graves, Jen, Deeply Embarrassed White People Talk Awkwardly About Race, The Stranger, Aug 30, 2011
11. Neill, Monty, NAEP Results Produce More Evidence Of NCLB'S Failure, Fairtest.org, 4/28/2009
12. Programme for International Student Assessment, 2009 results
13. Xiang, Yun et al., Do High Flyers Maintain Their Altitude?, Thomas B. Fordham Institute, September, 2011
14. Lillpop, John, Obama’s DOJ Forcing Dayton, Ohio Police Department to lower test scores for African-Americans recruits, Canada Free Press, March 14, 2011
15. Lott, John R Jr., Does a Helping Hand Put Others At Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments, and Crime, University of Chicago Law School
16. McGowan, William, Coloring The News, Encounter Books, 2001, PP. 144-157
17. The Daily Mail, 'Whites suffer more racism than blacks': Study shows white American people believe they are more discriminated against, 5/24/2011
18. CA Political News, California: Judge Upholds Racial Quotas for Highway Contracts--Discrimination Allowed in CA, April 08, 2011
19) Fair Test, Large 2011 SAT Score Decline Shows Failure of “No Child Left Behind”, 9/14/2011
20) Carney, J., Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending, Wall Street Journal, 6/27/2009
2. Black IQ
_______________________

A RACIAL IQ GAP HAS PERSISTED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS
The inquiry into racial differences in intelligence has been ongoing for more than a hundred years. Because cognitive ability is so highly correlated with career success, research into human intelligence is relevant to the affirmative action debate. Many advocates of affirmative action blame lower black IQ on racism, poverty, and educational neglect, all of which are manmade impediments that society can surmount through government initiatives. They believe that by elevating blacks out of poverty and into the middle class, they will improve their environment sufficiently to raise IQs. But the hope that preferential treatment can have such an effect is refuted by scientific research. This chapter will examine empirical evidence demonstrating that the crucial factor causing lower average black intelligence is genes. Comparing the environmental versus genetic evidence for lower black IQ, we will see that the evidence comes down decidedly in favor of a genetic explanation.
Because of overwhelming evidence, there is no reasonable basis to dispute the conclusion that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Since the beginning of IQ testing in America in the early 1900s, whites have scored about an average of 100 on tests of intelligence versus about 85 for blacks. Whenever IQ tests are administered to mixed-race samples, without fail blacks underperform whites. To assess the reliability of these results, in 2001 psychologist Philip L Roth of Clemson University conducted a meta-analysis of over 6 million scores from hundreds of IQ tests. A meta-analysis of this kind enhances reliability by smoothing out individual test anomalies among a huge sample of scores. Professor Roth concluded, based upon the totality of the evidence, that the black American population’s IQ average is between 15 and 17 points lower than whites. (1) Roth’s finding is entirely within the scientific mainstream. In 1995 the world’s most prestigious psychological organization – The American Psychological Association – issued a statement confirming the reality of a 15 point IQ gap. (2) While we can debate the cause of lower black IQ, the large consensus among experts in the field of intelligence leaves no room for doubt that blacks are less intelligent than whites.
The myth that IQ tests are culturally biased against blacks is easily debunked. This accusation implies that the true IQ average of blacks is actually higher than what test results show. It also suggests that blacks score lower because their upbringing gives them less exposure than whites to the knowledge needed to provide correct responses to test questions. Yet over the past 40 years scientists have never been able to prove racial bias in intelligence testing, despite the fact that it is easily spotted through statistical analysis. (3) Psychologists who prepare IQ and standardized tests go to great lengths to make sure that tests are not biased against blacks or any other racial group. The American Psychological Association – in its statement on racial intelligence – also confirmed that the observed racial IQ gap is not the result of biased testing, reflecting overwhelming agreement within the scientific community. Based upon the evidence, we must accept the fact that white Americans have higher average IQ than black Americans. (2)
It is frequently argued that science has no basis for establishing racial differences in intelligence because there is no such thing as race. This argument – employed any time someone suggests that blacks have lower average IQ – is readily refuted by the scientific evidence. A group of geneticists from around the country analyzed the genes of 3,636 racially diverse individuals and used the information to classify each of them as either black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or other. At the same time, each of the study’s participants was asked to self-identify the racial category to which they belonged. When the geneticists’ categorization was compared to participant’s self-categorization, they were found to be in agreement for all but 5 of the 3,636 participants. In other words, a geneticist can accurately identify a person’s race without ever seeing them just by analyzing their DNA. If race were simply a socially constructed phenomenon, this result would be impossible. The effort to deny the existence of race, as a means for avoiding the truth about racial IQ, is baseless. For purposes of this book, we define a black person as anyone who qualifies for affirmative action because they meet the federal definition of the term African American. The federal government grants affirmative action status to any American who traces their ancestry to Sub-Saharan Africa. (4)
IQ PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL SUCCESS
The reason we need to come to terms with black cognitive ability is because intelligence is the most important trait contributing to economic success. Most of the jobs commanding high income require well above average intellectual ability and are generally the type for which blacks most need preferential treatment. For many of the more desirable occupations a threshold IQ is needed to become competent. For example, intelligence experts regard an IQ of 115 as the minimum necessary for obtaining professional competency in occupations such as law, engineering and medicine. (5) Lacking this qualification is a non-starter, as no amount of motivation or effort can overcome the drawbacks of a mediocre mind in these cognitively challenging fields. While a genius could become a car mechanic because of love of cars, the reverse is not true, a car mechanic with an average IQ would not have the ability to become a surgeon. Of course, having the requisite IQ does not guaranty success, just like being tall does not mean one can play in the NBA, it just means one has the baseline credential to succeed in a higher IQ profession.
The importance of intelligence to real world success has been demonstrated by a multitude of studies. The largest such study determined that IQ is the single most important factor leading to occupational success. In the study, psychologists administered the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) to 78,000 air force personnel who were training for 89 separate job specialties. Their conclusion was that a service person’s general intelligence (as measured by the ASVAB) was a significant factor in their ability to complete training. The more cognitively demanding the job, the more success depended upon high IQ. (6) For example, a person’s IQ played only a 30% role in success at becoming a maintenance worker, so intelligence mattered a little bit but not much. But IQ proved critical (70%) for the more cognitively challenging role of nuclear weapons specialist. Trainees for this specialty who lacked good intelligence were unable to complete the program. The psychological literature is filled with similar studies that have verified the integral relationship between general intelligence and success in the work force. (7, P. 71-74).
IQ DIFFERENCES STEM FROM DIFFERENCES IN GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
Unlike many areas of scientific inquiry that seem hard to understand, it turns out that the trait of intelligence is not all that mysterious. When psychological researchers ask people to assess the intelligence of their friends and acquaintances, their impressions correspond very closely to how IQ tests rate them. (3, P. 58). These results are not surprising. One of the most important things we want to know, when sizing up another, is their intelligence. We are good at it because it is readily discernible in their behavior. Some clues are good communication skills, quickness of thought, a logical mind, and the ability to solve problems rapidly and accurately.
Institutions like corporations, universities, and the armed forces also recognize the importance of intelligence and seek to hire smart individuals. Primarily they want employees with four broad categories of cognitive ability: verbal, mathematical, reasoning, and visual-spatial. (8) These are the same mental abilities that IQ tests try to assess. Individuals who rate highly in these areas are in great demand because they make a bigger contribution to helping an organization succeed at achieving its objectives. Verbal ability includes the ability to define words, describe the world, build a large vocabulary, and form analogies. Almost any career requires good oral and written language skills to succeed, but they are especially important in communication fields such as journalism, advertising, and teaching. Mathematical intelligence obviously entails a facility with numbers. Some good career choices for the mathematically inclined include engineering, statistics, and the sciences. Reasoning involves the ability to see relationships between phenomena and infer conclusions. Some professions that stress the ability to reason are business management, law, and computer programming. Finally, visual-spatial intelligence is the ability to imagine three-dimensional objects in space and manipulate them in the mind’s eye. Some professions requiring it include architecture, graphic design and interior decoration.
These four mental abilities are by no means mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact they all have something in common called general intelligence. Psychometricians often call general intelligence the g factor or, more often, simply refer to it as g. The first person to recognize g was 19th century scientist Charles Spearman who noticed that children who achieved good grades in one subject, such as math for instance, also seemed in general to perform well in language, history, science, and other academic subjects. Intrigued by this pattern, he developed a statistical method called factor analysis that he used to compare students’ grades in multiple subjects. He concluded that there is indeed a common factor that leads brighter students to perform well in many academic areas and he coined the term general intelligence. Since then, the trait of general intelligence has been studied intensely, and has gained broad acceptance within the field of psychology as the underlying factor in IQ differences between individuals. (2)
The nature of g has little to do with performing previously learned tasks or recalling memorized information. Instead it involves “seeing relationships between elements, grasping abstract concepts, reasoning, analysis, finding common features among superficially dissimilar things, and inferring conclusions from given items of information.” It entails a capacity for mental exertion that is called upon “whenever a test item requires one to fill a gap, turn something over in one’s mind, make comparisons, and transform the input to arrive at the output.” An individual who develops a skill through practice and experience does not necessarily have high general intelligence. G is mental flexibility and quickness that “reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—‘catching on,’ ‘making sense’ of things, or ‘figuring out’ what to do.” It comes into play “whenever situations and tasks are unfamiliar, ambiguous, unpredictable, changing, unscripted, unsupervised, untutored, multi-faceted, or otherwise complex – that is, when they call for learning and judgment.” (3, P. 59)
Although Spearman realized that a general factor accounted for individual differences in intelligence, he lacked the benefit of modern science to be able to explain it more fully. Today we know that general intelligence is rooted in the brain. Just as some bodies are better built for excelling in athletics, some brains are better constructed for excelling in cognitive feats. A class valedictorian, for example, has a brain better designed for cognitive performance than an average student. While scientists are still trying to understand precisely how the brain works, much is already known and some of the brain structures that lead to differences in cognitive ability have been identified. Chapter 4 discusses these findings and examines the way that brain differences can lead to individual and racial differences in IQ. Right now, pen and paper IQ tests are the best way to measure individual differences in IQ, but this is still an indirect measurement. Some neuroscientists predict that, in the near future, conventional IQ tests will be replaced by brain imaging technologies that directly measure the size of relevant brain structures to assess intelligence.
General intelligence has tangible real world impact that shows up every day in the work place. It explains the lawyer whose superior reasoning wins the case, the advertising executive who creates a compelling ad campaign, the Hollywood writer who scripts a blockbuster movie and the astrophysicist whose insight leads to a greater understanding of the cosmos. General intelligence, as measured (imperfectly) by IQ tests, tells us a great deal about an individual’s potential for success in the work place. Someone with an IQ of 75 is probably not going to make it through high school. Someone with an IQ of 100 will probably not make it through college. And someone with an IQ of only 115 isn’t going to acquire a PhD in biochemistry. Thus, in a competitive market place, IQ looms large in earning potential and socioeconomic status. Large employers are quite familiar with the spectrum of cognitive talent and the qualifications needed for certain types of employment. We can profit from their knowledge by looking at some real world cognitive abilities tied to IQ level, as depicted in the following chart.

POPULATIONS HAVE DIFFERENT IQ DISTRIBUTIONS
Within a population, the trait of intelligence exhibits the form of a bell curve. If a representative sample from a population takes an IQ test, and we plot the results on a graph, the line drawn will resemble the shape of a bell. The graph’s horizontal axis shows the IQ score, the vertical axis registers the percentage of test takers achieving that score. By design, the population’s average score will about 100. The shape of the bell curve reflects the fact that the majority of test takers have average or near average intelligence. Less frequently some highly intelligent individuals will score pretty high, and even less frequently some will score very high. Likewise, some individuals will occasionally score noticeably below average, and infrequently some individuals significantly underperform the average. However, most are near average, and approximately 68% of test takers will score between 85 and 115. The resulting bell curve graph reflects this with a high center and rapidly descending flanks.

Bell Curve Distribution For IQ

Many human traits follow this kind of bell curve distribution pattern. Take height for example. In a town of 1,000 adult residents, it would be observable that most people would be about the same height with very few people at the extremes, so a seven-footer would get noticed. If you calculated the average height of all the adult males it would probably turn out to be somewhere around 5’ 10’’; half the male population would be at or taller than the average, half below. About 70% of the male population would fall within 3 inches of the average, or between 5’ 7’’ and 6’ 1’’. The chapter on genetics will explain why so many human traits conform to a bell curve distribution.
We can properly assess the magnitude of racial differences in IQ by comparing the black and white IQ distribution. The chart below reflects the results of the largest nation-wide IQ test assessment of blacks and whites ever conducted. (21) Although typically reported as 85 for the entire black population, 100 for whites, scientists have established that the racial IQ gap between adult blacks and whites is actually about 17 points. (9) Moreover, black variability in IQ score is lower than the variation of IQ among the white population, which exacerbates IQ differences at the high end of the curve. Using 2010 U.S. census data, the following table shows the IQ distribution of the current American black and white populations. About 85% of the black population has an IQ lower than the average white IQ. The most striking difference is at the high end. In the college-qualifying 115 plus range, about 22% of whites exceed the threshold while only slightly more than 1% of blacks do. In the 125-plus range, the realm of cognitive elites, whites have millions of representatives whereas very few blacks exceed this plateau. The advantage of whites at the high end of the curve is sobering and enlightening.

The argument for ending affirmative action is now obvious. Both proportionally and in absolute numbers, many more whites than blacks have IQs that endow them with the cognitive ability to excel in academic endeavors and do well in school. In addition, the white population also has many more individuals cognitively qualified to acquire advanced training, enter the professions, and earn a high level of income. Given the importance of IQ to academic and professional success, we have every reason to believe that lower levels of black achievement flow from lower black cognitive ability, not white discrimination or an impoverished environment. Since the cause of black underperformance is attributable to lower cognitive ability, one could argue that the rationale for affirmative action falls apart.
But this does not end the debate. Most advocates of affirmative action do not deny that blacks have lower average IQ than whites. Instead, they reverse cause and effect and argue that lower black IQ is the result of environmental factors rooted in a history of discrimination at the hands of whites. In other words, blacks and whites begin life with the same genes for IQ, but impediments in the environment steal 17 IQ points from each black American that they would otherwise have, if provided with the same advantages in childhood as whites. Some of the putative contributors to low black IQ include intergenerational poverty, ineffective inner city schools, and inescapable racial stereotypes. Liberals demand affirmative action to help overcome these disadvantages so that blacks can realize their true IQ potential. To counteract this scientifically unsupported argument, we will look at the evidence showing that the real cause of the cognitive gap is genes.
INTELLIGENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY HERITABLE
Regardless of a person’s race, intelligence is a highly heritable trait. While scientists quibble about the exact percentage, experts who study intelligence agree that the role of genes is very large. The American Psychological Association supports a 75 percent genetic explanation for IQ differences among adults. (2) Robert Plomin, author of college textbook Behavioral Genetics, puts the figure at 80 percent. (10) Thomas Bouchard, a University of Minnesota psychological researcher who studies the genetic influence on psychological differences, assigns a figure of 80 percent by the time an individual reaches age 18 and even higher in later adulthood. (11)
The primary way scientists try to answer the nature versus nurture question is through family studies. Theoretically one could answer the question definitively by making clones of the same individual and raising them in several different environments: poor, middle class, and wealthy. Should they all register similar IQs even after being raised in substantially different environments this would confirm the predominant role of genes. Because ethics forbids this type of research, scientists must approximate such an experiment by studying the IQs of monozygotic twins. Like clones, monozygotic twins share the exact same genes because of an accidental and natural cloning that occurs in 1 out of 50,000 births. It happens when a fertilized egg in the womb splits into two separate but genetically identical eggs that develop separately into distinct fetuses. While they may experience slightly different womb environments, they emerge at birth very nearly identical.
Scientists try to measure causation with a statistic called correlation. Correlation is measured on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 means that there is no indication of a relationship between two phenomena, and 1 means that one thing appears to cause another. In this book, we will look at correlations almost exclusively for the purpose of gauging the extent to which genes are the cause of IQ differences. A .2 correlation indicates a slight genetic influence, a .5 correlation means there is a significant genetic influence, and .8 means there is a very powerful genetic influence on IQ.
Monozygotic twin studies heavily bolster the case for the role of genes in IQ differences. Monozygotic twins raised in the same household have nearly identical IQs with about a .86 correlation between the siblings in childhood and as high as .95 in adulthood. When monozygotic twins are separated at birth, and reared in different households, they still end up with a .78 IQ correlation in childhood and .85 IQ correlation in adulthood. In other words, knowing the IQ of one adult monozygotic twin reveals with near certainty the IQ of the other. In contrast, ordinary siblings – who share only 50% of their genes – have a much lower IQ correlation of only .46 even when raised together in the same household. 
The rearing environment’s weak impact on IQ is further demonstrated by studies of dizygotic twins raised together. These siblings come from a mother who simultaneously ovulates two eggs that get fertilized by two separate sperm. Like normal siblings, they share only 50% of their genes, but unlike ordinary siblings they are subjected to almost identical environmental influences: they gestate in the same womb environment for 9 months and then experience nearly the same influences at the same age during childhood development. With the exception of monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins reared in the same household are as close as we come to individuals growing up in the same environment. In childhood, dizygotic twins evince a .6 IQ correlation, but by adulthood that declines to only about a .4 IQ correlation, or no more than ordinary siblings reared together.
Now consider unrelated siblings – who have no genetic similarity – raised in the same household. In childhood, adoptees and their unrelated siblings show a .25 correlation for general intelligence. However, when researchers test their IQs in adulthood, samples of unrelated siblings display a 0 IQ correlation. This is the same lack of IQ correlation found between two random strangers. So even when unrelated individuals grow up in the same house, share the same parents, go to the same schools, and have the same opportunities, they have no more IQ similarity in adulthood than two random strangers passing each other on a street. What unrelated siblings have in common – their shared living environment and parental influences – cannot counteract their genetic dissimilarity.
The accompanying chart demonstrates the strong correlation between IQ and genes, and the low correlation with the family rearing environment. Clearly, the role of genes is predominant, which is what leads psychologists to conclude that upwards of 80% of IQ differences among adults are caused by differences in the genes they inherit. (22, PP. 156-167)

Despite the evidence, left-leaning academics continue to cast doubt on the role of genes by insisting that intelligence is substantially influenced by the environment. University of Michigan psychologist Richard Nisbett epitomizes this point of view in his book Intelligence and How To Get It. Nisbett asserts that genes account for less than 50% of IQ differences between individuals and that it is possible to substantially raise an individual’s IQ by improving their environment during the formative years. He argues that optimizing the IQ of children requires rearing them in homes that offer outstanding environments with caring and educated parents, good nutrition, and encouragement for scholastic achievement. According to Nisbett, an impoverished environment condemns poor children to a lower IQ by undermining their opportunity for intellectual development. He then boldly claims that the difference between growing up in an impoverished household versus growing up in an upper middle class one is worth between 12 and 18 IQ points. (12)
The primary evidence Nisbett and likeminded scholars cite is studies of children adopted into stable households. In particular, Nisbett cites a French study by psychologists Christine Capron and Michel Dyume; they tested the IQs of children adopted by middle class families and concluded that being raised in good middle class homes substantially raises IQ. In addition, Nisbett also relies upon a meta-analysis of a number of other adoption studies showing similar IQ improvements. Nisbett concludes, “The effects on IQ of being adopted were very large, 14 points on average. But the social class of the adopting family made a great difference. Children adopted into lower-SES [Socio-Economic Status] families gained only 8 points; those adopted into middle-class families, 16 points; and those adopted into upper-middle-class families, almost 20 points.” According to Nisbett, this proves that remarkable improvements in cognitive ability are possible by raising children in a highly favorable environment. Based upon this evidence, he advocates spending tens of billions of dollars a year on programs to help raise the IQs of disadvantaged children. (12, PP. 32-38, 150)
Nisbett’s conclusion is erroneous because he ignores the fact that the IQ scores of adoptees do not persist into adulthood. It is well established within cognitive psychology that the IQs of children are highly malleable and can be heavily influenced by environment, so it is entirely predictable that placing children in a well-to-do home will raise their test scores. However, it is also well established that environmental effects on childhood IQ fade by adulthood. Scientists studied 13,582 twin pairs and found that while the shared household environment plays about a 30% role in IQ differences through childhood, by age 20 the influence of the household environment on IQ drops to zero. (13) In other words, raising children in middle class homes does not cause their IQs to be higher in adulthood. By adulthood, the IQs of adoptees resemble that of their biological parents whom they have never met, and show no correlation with the IQ of their adopted parents. Because the IQs of children do not solidify until adulthood, any adoption study claiming to raise the IQs of adoptees would need to follow up with tests of IQ after the age of 20. Since the studies Nisbett cites did not do that, we have no way of knowing whether the effects of the home environment in which they grew up were more than temporary. Thus, the studies Nisbett cites do not furnish evidence that the IQs of individuals are highly malleable over the long term.
The reason that the effects of home environment fade is because as children transition into adulthood they increasingly shape their own environment and move toward their genetic potential. (8, P. 157) Certainly by the time individuals reach high school they are deciding what extracurricular activities to participate in, what books to read, what people to spend their free time with, and with what level of cognitive stimulation they are comfortable. More intelligent individuals seek out pursuits compatible with their intellectual predisposition and, as a result, involve themselves in environments that stimulate their intellectual development. A child with relatively poor genes for IQ, adopted into a middle class home, has early advantages including exposure to college educated parents, academic encouragement, and all the other benefits that wealth can bring. Early on, their academic performance compares well with children in their age group. But as their higher IQ peers from less advantaged environments gain experience and move toward their potential, the benefits of a privileged rearing environment begin to fade. By early adulthood, when individuals have found their environmental niche, genes come to the fore and the advantages of a high socioeconomic status upbringing disappear.
Moreover, the rise in IQ seen among adopted children in the studies Nisbett cites is an illusion. When Professor Arthur Jensen reviewed the French study he found that while adoption into middle class homes raised the test scores of impoverished adoptees, it did not improve their general intelligence. Recall that general intelligence represents the brain’s mental work capacity and is the real basis of IQ differences. After analyzing the test data, Doctor Jensen found that the adoptees performed better on questions assessing prior learning, but they did not perform better than expected on questions requiring higher general intelligence. So while adoption into well to do homes improves knowledge and academic skills, it does not improve core cognitive ability. (14)
THE RACIAL INTELLIGENCE GAP IS ALSO CAUSED BY GENETIC DIFFERENCES
Since genes are largely responsible for individual differences in IQ, it might seem obvious that they also explain the 17-point racial IQ gap. Theoretically, this need not be the case. Blacks in America might be so impoverished or deprived of opportunity that even with the same genes for IQ as whites, their intellectual development would be impaired. The standard metaphor is taking seeds from the same batch, planting some of the seeds in fertile soil and some in the desert; the first will grow while the desert-planted seeds will not. If blacks live in an intellectual desert compared to whites then their innate intelligence cannot develop to its potential. To illustrate with an extreme example, suppose congress instituted a law prohibiting blacks from playing basketball until age 21. Deprived of an opportunity to develop dribbling, passing, and shooting skills, they would not be able to compete with whites for spots on NBA teams. It would be incorrect to conclude that blacks lacked the innate ability to compete with whites in the sport of basketball, given the overwhelming environmental advantage afforded whites.
Egalitarians argue that this is what is going on to cause differences in racial intelligence. They believe that black homes and neighborhoods, compared to that of whites, are less fruitful for developing childhood IQ and inhibit the full flowering of intellectual ability. Of course whites have higher IQ, say egalitarians, since white children grow up in better circumstances. Richard Nisbett, for example, who acknowledges a 50% genetic role in individual IQ differences, insists that genes cause none of the 17-point racial IQ gap. Although he has no empirical evidence to support his assertions, some of the environmental culprits Nisbett implicates are “poor prenatal care and nutrition, relative infrequency of breast-feeding, deficiency of vitamins and minerals, lead poisoning, fetal alcohol poisoning, poorer health care, greater exposure to asthma-causing pollution, emotional trauma, poor schools, poor neighborhoods along with the less desirable peers who come along with the territory, and much moving and consequent disruption of education.” (12, P. 101) Affluent households, by contrast, have more access to televisions, books, news magazines, stimulating conversation with educated parents, and encouragement to perform academically. Because black households have disproportionately fewer of the positive influences, and more of the negative influences, they end up with lower average IQ. 
Regardless of how persuasive such arguments may seem, the evidence shows that a better environment for blacks does not improve their IQ. Black children raised in the kind of enriched environment liberals insist is needed for high IQ do not grow up to be any smarter. The quintessential study demonstrating this is the famous Minnesota trans-racial adoption study. (24) 130 black and mixed-race adopted children grew up in affluent white Minnesotan homes. All of the children had the benefit of educated parents, quality schools, and a home environment conducive to learning. Their IQs were tested at age 7 and then again at age 17 and the results are revealing. By age 17, the two-black-parent adopted children had IQs 16 points lower than white adopted children, the same black-white IQ gap we always see. Their 89 IQ average was the same as the black IQ average found in the North Central United States. (9, P. 474) While liberal scholars insist that raising blacks in favorable circumstances will overcome the gap, the evidence shows that the environment is not the cause of lower black IQ.

None of the other evidence over the past half century gives reason to suspect that there is a way to uplift average black IQ. If an improved environment could raise the black IQ average it would have happened already. The environment for the black population has improved dramatically over the past 100 years ago in terms of nutrition, health care, education, and every other social wellness benchmark. Yet the racial IQ gap has not diminished at all. If raising blacks in privileged circumstances could produce higher IQ then wealthy black kids would be outperforming poor whites, but they do not. Affluent black children raised by parents in the top 10% of socioeconomic status still get outscored by impoverished white children who grow up in families from the bottom 20%. (7, P. 288) If poor schools cause lower black IQ then improving education should make a difference. Yet even scandalous levels of public expenditure do not help. The District of Columbia – with an 80% black student population – spends more per pupil than any other municipality in the country ($28,000 per student) yet its students’ standardized test scores rank among the lowest 15% in the nation. (22)
Some researchers have even attempted to raise the IQs of impoverished black children using specially designed social interventions. Their goal was to simulate a middle class home environment to try to nurture cognitive ability. None of these expensive programs has demonstrated that there is some way that society can intervene to overcome the racial IQ gap. The most publicized case, known as the Abecedarian Project, purportedly raised the IQs of poor black children by almost 5 IQ points, far short of the 15 points needed to catch up to whites. The study – conducted under the auspices of the University of North Carolina – was expensive, intensive, and unprecedented in its efforts to improve the cognitive ability of black children. 111 black infants from poor families participated in the study, with half of the kids receiving treatment and half acting as a comparison group. The treatment consisted of 8 hours of daycare 5 days a week from the age of 6 months to 5 ½ years when they entered kindergarten.
At age 21, the treated children averaged only 4.4 IQ points higher than the non-treated children. Even assuming that the study’s results were legitimate, no one supposes for a moment that this kind of mass treatment for millions of black infants would be economically feasible. Moreover, it would not reduce the IQ gap, because such treatment would have to be extended to all impoverished children, including whites, whose IQ would also be raised. These results again tell us that environment is not the cause of lower black IQ and that even the most intensive remedial efforts cannot erase the gap. In addition, critics of the study claim that there is evidence that those in charge of the project did not randomly select the test subjects, and that the group which received treatment already had a higher average IQ before the study commenced. (7, P. 407) If true then the results of the study are invalid. No one has ever replicated the results of the Abecedarian study, nor attempted to implement such a costly program on a mass scale to overcome the racial achievement gap.
Many scholars have tried to empirically identify the environmental factors that lower black IQ, but without success. Psychologists call hypothesized environmental causes of lower black IQ “X-factors” because while they sound plausible, they have no empirical backing. If scientists could pinpoint some environmental contributor to lower black IQ, they could focus on fixing the causative factor. A sampling of the X factors various commentators on the IQ debate have hypothesized include poverty, stereotype threat, peer pressure, membership in a caste system, number of books in home, whether parents read to children, and amount of hours spent on homework. University of Arizona behavioral geneticist Dave Rowe issued questionnaires to college students of both races asking specific questions about a host of environmental factors and compared their responses to test scores and grades. Psychological researchers M. J. Ree and T. R. Carretta, using black and white air force personnel, conducted similar studies; they distributed questionnaires and examined test scores in search of race-specific environmental factors that lowered black cognitive ability. None of these studies was able to identify any environmental variable that contributed to the racial IQ gap. The same variables that correlated with white IQ also correlated with black IQ, and to the same degree. According to Rowe, if environmental anomalies were responsible for low black IQ then it would be detectable statistically. The inability to find such a factor tells us once again that the cause of lower black IQ is not from something in the black environment. (15-19)
On the other hand, despite the de facto ban on racial research currently in effect in America, there is considerable evidence that genes do cause lower black IQ. This is demonstrated by a widening gap in performance between blacks and whites the more that a test taxes general intelligence. Psychometric researcher Arthur Jensen used factor analysis to analyze the scores of nearly 300,000 black and white test takers; he found that the more g-loaded the test – i.e. the more it taxed the brain’s processing power, not previously learned information – the more whites outperformed blacks. (9, P. 377) These findings strongly implicate a genetic cause of higher white IQ, since empirical research has shown that general intelligence is highly correlated with the genes one inherits. (10, P. 159)
The causal link between genes and racial IQ differences is also powerfully demonstrated by a phenomenon called regression to the mean. This refers to the tendency of offspring to be more average than their parents. It will happen for any human trait that follows a bell curve pattern, and means there is a likelihood that children will display the trait closer to the average than their parents. A good example is height. Unusually tall or unusually short parents will tend to produce offspring closer to the population average. A 6’ 5” father and a 6’ tall mother will probably have tall children, but the tendency for children to regress to the mean makes it likely they will move closer to the average of 5’ 7”, so their offspring might average 5’ 11”. That is because it is against the odds that children will inherit as many of the gene versions for tallness as their uncommonly tall parents, and they end up nearer the population average.
Regression to the mean corroborates the role of genes in lower black IQ by the fact that black children gravitate toward a lower IQ average than do white children. Professor Arthur Jensen examined 900 white sibling pairs and compared them to 500 black sibling pairs from the same school district. He found that white children with 120 IQs had siblings who averaged an IQ of 113, while black children with 120 IQs had siblings who averaged only 99. At the low end of bell curve, the white children with IQs of 70 had siblings with an average IQ of 85; black children with 70 IQs had siblings who only averaged 78. Doctor Jensen’s study demonstrates that whites have a greater abundance of the versions of genes for higher intelligence circulating within their gene pool. Says Jensen, “Throughout the range of IQs from 50 to 150 the results were exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture-only theory. “ (20, P. 35)
We have additional evidence that genes cause lower black IQ from studies of cousin inbreeding. When first cousins produce offspring there is a heightened risk that their children will display harmful traits. This happens because everyone inherits two of every gene – one from their mother, one from their father – and they act together to produce traits. Recessive gene versions (called alleles) are ones that only produce a trait when an individual inherits the same version from both parents. Cousins share about 1/8th of their gene versions because they descend from the same grandparents, so when they breed they are more likely than unrelated couples to produce a child with two recessive gene versions that affect a trait in a harmful way. Psychologists have found that offspring of cousins average 8 IQ points lower than the general population, because they are more likely to inherit two recessive gene versions that contribute to low IQ. Knowing this, Japanese researchers administered an IQ test consisting of 11 subtests to 1,854 Japanese offspring of cousin marriages, and were able to identify which of the subtests the inbred children performed most poorly on, compared to normal children. It was a clever way to identify the subtests most influenced by genes.
Professor J. P. Rushton used this evidence to investigate the cause of the black-white IQ gap. He gave the exact same IQ subtests in English to a sample of black and white American children, and found that blacks performed more poorly than whites on exactly those subtests most influenced by genes. According to Professor Rushton, “There is no non-genetic explanation for why Black-White differences in the US should be more pronounced on those subtests showing the most inbreeding depression among the Japanese in Japan.” (9) Once again, empirical inquiry demonstrates the powerful role of genes in racial cognitive differences.
Finally, we can see the impact of genes on the worldwide color pattern of IQ test scores. If whites tend to have more of the gene versions for better intelligence, then children from mixed-race parents should on average have higher IQs than two-black-parent offspring. This is exactly the pattern we see around the world. In South Africa, pure blacks average about 70, mulattos 85, and whites 100. In America, blacks with two black parents average about 85, blacks with one white and one black parent about 93, and whites 100. (23) The average is higher for American blacks, who trace about 20% of their genetic inheritance from European ancestors as a result of interracial mating. What we see is that higher concentrations of white genes raise the IQ of blacks because they receive the more favorable white genes for higher intelligence. The chapter on genetics will discuss this issue further.
Contrary to mainstream media assertions, there is no scientific evidence that the American environment depresses black cognitive ability. If anything, the enriched American environment offering 12 years of education and almost endless opportunities for cognitive stimulation would tend to encourage intellectual development to the fullest potential. This certainly seems to be the case with Asian Americans, who outperform whites in all academic endeavors. There is no known environment in which black children can be raised that enables them to match white IQ averages, white levels of academic achievement, or white levels of socioeconomic success. Even blacks from the most affluent backgrounds get outperformed by impoverished whites. Instead of a futile search for some environmental explanation for low black IQ, we will gain a better understanding of the issue by looking at the biological roots of racial IQ differences.
References
_______________________
1. Roth, P. L. et al., (2001), Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297-330
2. Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, Report of a Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association, Released August 7, 1995
3. Jensen, A. R. (1981) Straight Talk About Mental Tests, The Free Press, New York, P. 136
4. Hua Tang et. al., Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies, The American Journal of Human Genetics, Feb. 2005
5. Gottfredson, Linda (2003) Suppressing Intelligence Research: Hurting Those We Intend to Help, P. 24
6. Ree, M. J., and Earles, J. A. (1990), Differential Validity of a Differential Aptitude Test. AFHRL-TR-89-59. Brooks Air Force Base, Tex.:Manpower and Personnel Division.
7. Herrnstein, R. J. & Murray, C. (1994), The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press,
8. Lewis, R., Human Genetics, 7th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 2007, P. 155
9. Jensen, A. R., The G Factor, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1998
10. Plomin, R. et. al., Behavioral Genetics, 5th ed., Worth Publisher, New York, 2008
11) Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Genetic influence on human psychological traits - A survey". Current Directions in Psychological Science 13 (4): 148–151
12) Nisbett, R. E. (2009) Intelligence and How To Get It, Knopf, W. W. Norton and Company, New York
13) McGue, M. et al., (1993). Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: A life-span perspective. In R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology (pp. 59-76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14) Jensen, A. R. (1997). Adoption data and two g-related hypotheses. Intelligence, 25, 1-6
15) Rowe, D. C. (2005). Under the skin: On the impartial treatment of genetic and environmental hypotheses of racial differences. American Psychologist, 60, 60-70.
16) Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Flannery, D. J. (1994). No more than skin deep: Ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process. Psychological Review, 101, 396-413.
17) Rowe, D. C., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Flannery, D. J. (1995). Ethnic and racial similarity in developmental process: A study of academic achievement. Psychological Science, 6, 33-38.
18) Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (1995). Group differences in aptitude factor structure on the ASVAB. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 268-277.
19) Carretta, T. R., & Ree, M. J. (1995). Near identity of cognitive structure in sex and ethnic groups. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 149-155.
20) Rushton, J. P. and Jensen, A. R. (2009) Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It
21) Statistics for the table derived from The Bell Curve (7) pp. 278, 572.
22) Coulson, Andrew J., DC Per Pupil Spending, Cato Institute, March, 2009
23) Weinberg, R. A. et al., (1992) The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A follow-up of IQ test performance at adolescence. Intelligence, 16, 117-135
3. Suppressing The Truth
_______________________
The reason most Americans mistakenly believe in equal racial intelligence is because the mainstream purveyors of knowledge systematically deprive them of the truth. The widespread belief in IQ equality contradicts the best available scientific research. Studies on racial IQ invariably undermine environmental theories and end up confirming genetic explanations. If the opposite were true, and the evidence supported an environmental explanation, one can imagine that the topic of racial intelligence could be discussed without trepidation. But because the scientific research refutes the prevailing liberal egalitarian view on race, the facts about racial intelligence are proactively covered up and hidden from the public. Thus, we must be highly skeptical of the conventional wisdom about racial IQ and be open to questioning racial dogma. The effort to stifle the scientific truth emanates primarily from two institutions: the mainstream media and academia.
A few scholars from academia have described the systematic censorship of racial IQ issues at American colleges and universities. The most prominent is Linda Gottfredson, a University of Delaware researcher who has spent the past 35 years studying human intelligence, and has written about the effort to suppress the facts about lower black IQ. A graduate of Johns Hopkins University, she is the author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers and sits on the board of several scholarly publications. Professor Gottfredson provides us with a rare and candid insider’s view into how universities control what passes for scientific truth, especially when it comes to the issue of racial intelligence. She documents the culture of fear surrounding race and the systematic practice of stifling discussion and discouraging research into this taboo area. Departments of science, far from doggedly pursuing truth, pressure scholars to adhere to orthodoxy. 
Anyone who enters the discipline of Psychology and related fields quickly learns the art of self-censorship. Scientists learn that it is politically incorrect to arrive at conclusions or to publicize facts that suggest the existence of racial differences in ability. Says Gottfredson, “Common forms of self-censorship include intentionally omitting relevant facts or findings from one’s publications, ignoring them in others, failing to draw obvious connections between phenomena, not disputing clear but convenient falsehoods, and not performing analyses that might produce the politically wrong answer…” (1, P. 8) Fledgling researchers discover from the outset that making progress in a science career requires learning what constitutes offensive speech, what avenues of research are politically unacceptable, and staying clear of the boundary line. University administrators know that the best way to keep knowledge about racial differences bottled up is to prohibit even the mere discussion of it. With scholars censoring their own thoughts and monitoring that of their colleagues for signs of unorthodoxy, a chilling effect permeates the scientific and academic environments that keeps the true facts about racial intelligence from surfacing.
As described by professor Gottfredson, scholars who defy the field of psychology’s unwritten code of silence on racial intelligence must be prepared to face the consequences. This includes becoming a campus pariah, being shunned by colleagues, losing out on promotions, or even job termination. Even former allies can turn on the dissident lest by staying on the sidelines they appear to support their colleague’s insubordination. (1, P. 7) Many an academic career in psychology has been tainted by trying to tell the truth. For example, Professor Arthur Jensen, a University of California at Berkeley psychologist, received prestigious awards for his work in intelligence research. That changed in 1969 when he published a paper asserting that we should not expect black students to reduce the academic achievement gap with whites because they are innately less intelligent. (2) Subsequently, he was overlooked by the American Psychological Association and other psychological societies despite the highest regard by other scientists for the quality of his research.
Retribution of this kind is not uncommon. When Nobel Prize winner James Watson publicly expressed pessimism about Africa’s ability to make progress toward industrialization, on account of the low level of intelligence of its population, he was removed from his position as chancellor of the renowned Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institute. (3) Finnish Professor Tatu Vanhanen – whose son at the time was Prime Minister of Finland – was threatened with criminal charges for questioning the ability of African countries to govern themselves with such low IQ populations. The country’s National Bureau of Investigation stated that his comments could represent a violation of the country’s laws against racial incitement and launched an investigation. (7) University of Toronto psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, at the forefront of research into racial differences, was investigated not only by university officials but also the Ontario Provincial Police for possible criminal conduct for his outspoken opinions on racial differences. Although absolved of any wrongdoing, Rushton still faces vilification in the press for his views. Under the repressive atmosphere surrounding racial IQ, scientists who speak out do so at the risk of career, reputation, and in some countries possibly even jail time.
Scholars with unorthodox views on racial IQ also have a harder time getting their works published. Publishing companies and scholarly journals often refuse the work of scholars whose views conflict with the prevailing egalitarian paradigm. Without a literary outlet for peer review and scholarly discussion, a scientist’s ideas and groundbreaking research will come to naught. Publisher John Wiley and Sons was set to publish University of Edinburgh psychology Professor Christopher Brand’s The g Factor, but withdrew the book after he made statements to the press expressing his belief that lower black intelligence is a scientific fact. (6) No major publishing houses would publish James Lynn’s seminal book IQ and the Wealth of Nations – which puts forth the controversial idea that the IQ of a nation’s people and it gross national product are correlated – forcing him to publish the work through a little known publishing firm with limited distribution channels. Doctor J. Philippe Rushton ran into the same issue when he attempted to publish his groundbreaking book Race, Evolution, and Behavior, and finally ended up having to self publish the work. Professor Linda Gottfredson, attempting to publish a paper on the lower job prospects for blacks because of lower average IQ, had the paper rejected by an editor of the journal The Public Interest on grounds that findings from the social sciences were outweighed by social considerations. (1, P. 11) Such censorship can only be interpreted as a deliberate effort to suppress a meaningful dialogue on the issue of racial IQ.
Reputation is the lifeblood of any academic career, so character attacks can be particularly devastating to one’s professional aspirations. What distinguishes the issue of racial IQ is that even honest, accurate, and scientifically based opinion can lead to vilification. When Harvard psychologist and The Bell Curve co-author Richard Herrnstein suggested in an Atlantic Monthly article that social class is partly a function of IQ and genes, he was promptly branded a racist. When Professor Jensen presented his findings on lower black IQ, American Psychological Association president Robert Sternberg dubbed Professor Jensen’s work “quasi-science” and another fellow psychologist accused him of espousing racist goals. (1) More recently, Harvard students demanded the expulsion law student Stephanie Grace, after she imprudently confided in a private email that got forwarded to the press "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent." The outrage has been more muted toward Roland Fryer, an acclaimed Harvard economics professor, who mirrored Grace’s view when he stated, “Although damaging to the hypothesis that genetic differences are at the root of racial gaps in intelligence, the results of our analysis do not preclude a possible role for a genetic contribution to racial differences in intelligence for a number of reasons." (18) As Fryer is black, his views cannot be ascribed to racism. 
There are a relative handful of intrepid scholars who continue to conduct research into the forbidden issue of racial intelligence, but they face an uphill battle. The vast majority of psychological research is carried out at institutions of higher learning where university administrators and academic committees control funding, staffing, facilities, and recruitment of test subjects. Scholars who submit proposals for research into racial cognitive ability are more likely to precipitate a backlash from their employer than to get funding. University administrators can discourage researchers using tactics like “banning requisite funding, blocking promotions and merit pay, requiring that lectures be given by videotape, instigating investigations for hate crimes, threatening dismissal, and the like”. Even when funding does come through it can be difficult to find other researchers to share the burden of carrying out the study. (1, P. 10) For the most part, however, studies into racial differences – particularly on racial intelligence – are de facto banned in America.
Many American scientists and academic administrators would prefer a formal ban on racial research. Eminent psychologist Leon Kass recounts an instance of censorship that occurred when he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s premier scientific organization. His colleague, Nobel Prize winner William Shockley, after reading Professor Jensen’s paper on black IQ, called upon the academy to fund research into the issue. A committee that was formed to consider the request rejected it, not on scientific grounds, but out of concern for the possible social repercussions if the findings turned out to support the genetic theory. Kass states that this was one of only two instances in his multi-decade career where he witnessed an incident of censorship in American science. (4) Ironically, with the advanced state of modern genetics, it is now possible to study the correlation between race and IQ with great precision, because scientists can identify the racial heritage of test subjects using DNA analysis. Egalitarian scientists, instead of pursuing answers using modern technologies, prefer instead to bicker over decades-old research. One can only surmise that is because they already know what the results would be.
The hazards of pursuing taboo science were recently brought home to a University of Chicago scientist who speculated that genes might explain the low black IQ conundrum. Dr. Bruce Lahn, a Harvard-trained professor of genetics, was studying two genes – ASPM and Microcephalin – that play a role in the development of brain size; people with faulty versions of these genes are born with abnormally small brains. Lahn examined the DNA of 1,184 individuals from 59 different groups around the world and made a startling discovery. First, new versions of these genes have evolved within the recent past; secondly, while these new versions are prevalent among Europeans, hardly any Africans carry them. Lahn immediately grasped the possible implication: whites had evolved versions of the genes not found among blacks and this might potentially explain larger white average brain size and higher average IQ. (5)
Lahn arranged a press conference to announce his findings only to be met with a firestorm of criticism and accusations of racism. Even the National Institute of Health weighed in against him. The beleaguered professor had not anticipated the kind of reaction his discovery would incite. A Chinese native, Lahn was a Harvard student when China’s crackdown on political dissidents convinced him to remain in America and pursue a career in science. Somehow, the 37-year-old genius averted indoctrination into the self-censorship that governs the research community when it comes to race. His colleague, Dr. Henry Harpending, suggests that Lahn is unfamiliar with American political correctness and not fully sensitized to the taboo on racial research. Shortly afterward, Lahn was given tenure at the University of Chicago and ended up abandoning his plans to continue investigating the genes. He lamented that the “intellectual police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue. (5)
Yet it is not lack of funding, a repressive academic atmosphere, or even censorship that presents the biggest impediment to public recognition of the intelligence gap. There is a mass of existing evidence demonstrating lower black IQ. The biggest problem is ideologically motivated scientists who continually raise doubts about that evidence. They use their academic credentials to lend a veneer of credibility to criticisms of the case to be made for lower black cognitive ability, and introduce scientific red herrings that the mainstream media hypes to the public. According to Doctor Gottfredson “The media can keep repainting its libelous portrait of intelligence research only with the complicity of intelligence’s mother field, psychology.” (1, P.2) These scholarly critics, whose primary interest is in safeguarding the egalitarian narrative, are primarily responsible for perpetuating the tenuous notion that social engineering can overcome low black IQ.
Over the past two decades, one of the most frequently cited champions of the egalitarian fiction is Professor James Flynn. His most acclaimed accomplishment is popularizing the Flynn-effect, the phenomenon of worldwide rising IQ scores. All intelligence experts agree with Flynn that IQ scores of all races have risen by about 15 IQ points over the past half century, possibly due to improvements in nutrition and education. In 2006, Flynn asserted that the Flynn-effect proves that improvements to the environment can raise IQ scores, and that improving the environment for blacks can erase the IQ gap with whites. Egalitarians immediately seized upon his work as support for affirmative action and for the need to spend money on raising black cognitive ability. Liberal media outlets cite his findings to suggest that the academic community supports an environmental explanation for lower black IQ.
No media attention is paid to the refutation of Flynn’s theory by psychologist J. P. Rushton. Doctor Rushton found that while IQ scores have been rising over the past 50 years, general intelligence has not. (8) Whatever factors are causing IQ test scores to rise, it is not because people today are innately smarter than people who lived fifty or a hundred years ago. Other researchers studying the Flynn-effect have demonstrated that the phenomenon is not proof that the black-white IQ gap can be overcome by improving the environment of blacks. Says Rushton, “Their results showed that the Flynn Effect is qualitatively different from the Black-White difference in regards to the g factor.” (9, P. 9) Thus, the general trend of rising IQ scores has no implications for the black-white IQ gap and does not in any way suggest that the gap is environmentally caused. Flynn’s assertion that erasing the gap is simply a matter of improving the environment for blacks is not supported by the evidence.
Flynn has been at the forefront of defending the egalitarian position and casting doubt upon the overwhelming hereditarian evidence for more than a decade. A professor of political science at the Dunedin University in New Zealand, his ardor for defending black IQ would seem to be an outgrowth of his admirable efforts as an activist in the Deep South during the civil rights era. A member of the Congress on Racial Equality, Flynn helped organize protests on behalf of full political rights for southern blacks.
Flynn inadvertently exposed the weakness of his stance on racial IQ during a 2006 debate with The Bell Curve co-author Charles Murray. The debate took place at the American Enterprise Institute in front of a live audience and can be viewed on Youtube. At issue was whether the black-white IQ gap is caused by genes or by the environment. Arguing that the gap is solely environmental, Flynn’s primary evidence throughout the debate was a German study that he asserts demonstrates that the low IQ average of American blacks is entirely the fault of American culture.
The study to which he refers was conducted by German psychologist Hans Eysenck. Professor Eysenck examined 181 children fathered by American soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II. Using a reliable standardized IQ test known as the WAIS, he found that the 98 mixed-race offspring of black American soldiers and white Germen women had the same approximately 100 average IQ as that of 83 offspring from white American soldiers and white German women. Flynn regards these results as proof that blacks have the same predisposition for high IQ as whites, and asserts that black and white IQ averages will always equate, so long as black children are raised in cultures like post WWII Germany that are unbiased. He attributes low black IQ in America to cultural factors that impede cognitive development. (10, P. 482). Flynn has stated that the German study is the most direct evidence refuting the genetic explanation of low black IQ, and argues that raising the IQs of American blacks merely requires identifying America’s cultural biases and correcting them. 
The problem with his argument is that the German study is so flawed it actually tells us nothing about racial IQ differences. Almost a quarter of the ‘black’ American soldiers were actually North African Caucasians that the army misclassified as black. Moreover, the sample of black fathers was not representative of the black American population. During WW II, the army rejected 30% of black army applicants because of low IQ as opposed to just 3% of white applicants; thus, their fathers’ relatively higher IQ genes would have skewed the IQs of the black German children. Finally, the average age of the children in the study at the time Eysenck tested their IQ was only about 10 years, far too young to draw definitive conclusions about the long-term genetic differences between the comparison groups. (9, PP. 33-34)
Flynn’s overreliance on this study to support his belief in the equality of racial abilities is telling. Although the study was done more than 50 years ago, and despite its many flaws, it is still the evidence Flynn chiefly relies upon to support his position. If blacks actually possessed the same genes for high IQ as whites, one would have to believe that more credible evidence would have emerged since then to support his position. The dearth of empirical research demonstrating that environmental factors cause lower black IQ leads egalitarian scholars like Flynn to grasp at straws. Flynn’s opponent Charles Murray stated during the debate that had the results of the questionable study not shown equivalent IQs for German half-whites, it would have been long forgotten.
The most heralded book of the past decade on racial IQ is Intelligence and How To Get It by Richard Nisbett. A professor of psychology at the University of Michigan at Anne Arbor, Nisbett has written extensively on the topic of racial differences in intelligence and has been among the harshest critics of the evidence demonstrating lower black IQ. His book provides a comprehensive review of the debate over racial IQ and attacks the science demonstrating genetic differences in racial intelligence. Highly praised by liberal scholars and media outlets like the New York Times, egalitarians frequently cite the book as a refutation of the hereditarian position. (11) His book’s main theses are 1) IQ is less than 50% heritable and highly susceptible to environmental influences and 2) the IQ gap between blacks and whites is entirely caused by environmental factors and is diminishing. (12)
While the book was praised by the mainstream media, experts in the field of intelligence were dismayed by its blatantly biased portrayal of the known evidence. In their review of the book, J. P. Rushton and Arthur Jensen labeled it a work of advocacy, not scholarship, and concluded “Nisbett did his readers and the field [of psychology] a disservice by misrepresenting much of the available information.” (9, P. 38). Rushton and Jensen wrote an exhaustive book review identifying the ways Nisbett supported his position by offering doctored statistics, omitting data, and deliberately misrepresenting evidence. Some of the more egregious examples include the following:
1] Nisbett would have his readers believe that between 1972 and 2002 blacks reduced the IQ gap with whites by 5.5 IQ points. He based his claim upon statistical analysis done by aforementioned professor James Flynn who analyzed the scores of blacks and whites on 3 IQ tests: The Wechsler, the Stanford-Binet, and the Air Force Qualification Test. Shockingly, Jensen and Rushton found that Flynn had omitted from his analysis 4 other mixed-race IQ test results during this same period which had shown lesser gains and, in the case of one of the tests, a widening of the racial gap. They also pointed out that even the three tests Flynn used in his analysis showed only a 3.4 point IQ gain, not 5.5 points as claimed. The latter figure was arrived at using a ‘trend line’ that projected improving IQ scores into the future by assuming the calculated gains would continue. When Jensen and Rushton included the data from all 7 tests and calculated the average, they found the gap had narrowed by only 2 points, which does not contradict their view that the Black-White gap is 80% heritable. (9, P. 7) Nisbett also failed to mention that a meta-analysis of over 6,000,000 IQ scores done in 2001 by Clemson University psychologist Philip Roth found no decrease in the racial gap.
2] Nisbett told his readers that, between 1972 and 2002, black students reduced the achievement gap with whites by 35% on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP). This is the nation-wide assessment of academic preparedness administered every two years to the nation’s 4th and 8th graders. Professor Linda Gottfredson reviewed the NAEP test scores for this period and found only a 20% black increase. Although Nisbett did not reveal how he calculated his result, Rushton and Jensen surmise Nisbett came up with his 35% figure by omitting the black science score results, which still show the same large statistical gap with whites. Rushton and Jensen performed a subsequent analysis of the NAEP results – including the most recent from 2008 after Nisbett’s book was published – and found that there has been no narrowing of the racial achievement gap over the past 50 years. (19)
3] Nisbett dismisses the correlation between IQ and brain size by resorting to an outrageous example of selective use of evidence. On page 218 of his book he argues that bigger brain size does not correlate with higher IQ, and as proof cites a single study by P. T. Shoenemann. (13) Rushton and Jensen point out that the study Nisbett cites used only 20 sister sibling pairs, too small a sample to draw a reliable inference. Nisbett omitted any mention of 4 other similar studies on brain size with much larger sample sizes that show a high correlation between brain size and IQ. (9, P. 24)
4] Nisbett downplays the evidence that Asians have higher IQs than whites. Jensen and Rushton believe this was a deliberate omission to distract from the fact that IQ is closely linked to race. For example, while raising black children in white homes does not improve the black IQ average, in three separate studies malnourished East Asian infants adopted into white homes ended up with higher IQ averages than whites. In addition, East Asians have larger average brain size than blacks despite being born with lower birth weight. Asians also consistently outperform blacks and whites on reaction time measures of intelligence, a phenomenon that cannot be explained by cultural factors. As Nisbett is an expert on Asian IQ, and even wrote a book on the subject, his omission seems self-serving since this evidence undercuts his assertion that black-white IQ differences in America are entirely the result of cultural factors, and have nothing to do with genes and race.
5] Nisbett also boldly asserts that IQ is highly malleable and that impoverished children could gain up to 18 IQ points by being raised under more favorable circumstances. As mentioned in chapter 2, he relies almost entirely on evidence from adoption studies. However, he scarcely mentions that the studies he cites measure the IQs of adopted children at an age when they are too young to draw reliable long-term conclusions. Nisbett offers his readers no examples of adoption studies showing permanent IQ improvement into adulthood because there are none.
Perhaps the most egregious case of pseudoscience as it pertains to racial IQ belongs to the deceased Harvard scientist Steven J. Gould. A brilliant scholar and acclaimed paleontologist, he now stands accused of fabricating data for his frequently cited 1981 book The Mismeasure of Man. In it, Gould claimed to debunk the concept of general intelligence, and argued that scientists like Arthur Jensen, who espouse the concept of g, were simply attempting to revive the racist philosophies of 19th century social Darwinists. He also questioned their objectivity and accused them of subconsciously manipulating their research results to confirm their theory of racial differences. In his book, Gould famously charged 19th century scientist Samuel George Morton of this type of bias, and asserted that it affected his measurements of the skulls of blacks and whites that led him to conclude blacks have smaller average brain size. Gould proceeded to ‘expose’ the many ways Morton subconsciously manipulated data to arrive at his erroneous conclusion.
Then in June of 2011 anthropologists Jason Lewis and Ralph Holloway of the University of Pennsylvania announced that it was Gould who had committed fraud. They re-examined the skulls Morton had measured and determined that Morton’s measurements were in fact accurate, and that Gould’s analysis was rife with miscalculations and omissions. In light of Gould’s strong socialist views, the pair question Gould’s own motivations for accusing Morton. After Gould’s book was published in 1981, a Macalester College student named John S. Michael reviewed Morton’s data and found none of the errors claimed by Gould. In 1996 when Gould published an updated version of The Mismeasure of Man – his response to the publication of The Bell Curve – he retained his criticism of Morton’s work, but failed to mention that his review of Morton’s data had been challenged. While some scholars attribute Gould’s discredited criticism of Morton to error, Holloway doubts this was the case. “I just didn’t trust Gould,” he said. “I had the feeling that his ideological stance was supreme. When the 1996 version of ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ came and he never even bothered to mention Michael’s study, I just felt he was a charlatan.” (14)
Readers who believe that the weight of the evidence supports the conventional view of equal genetic intelligence between the races should consider the source of this wisdom. Flynn, Nisbett, and Gould are among the most frequently cited experts by the mainstream media on the subject of racial IQ. If these scholars had the evidence to back up their claims they certainly would not need to misstate the evidence, selectively cite only studies that support their position, and engage in outright fraud. True science lets the facts speak for themselves. Their willingness to present the issue through a biased lens calls into question their motivations and the credibility of their work. All three are politically left of center, and both Flynn and Gould were civil rights activists deeply affected by the fight for equal rights in the 1960s. While left-leaning scholars adamantly deny that ideology influences their stance on racial IQ, an examination of their work demonstrates a different reality.
We must therefore regard the media’s coverage of racial IQ as untrustworthy. The media selectively relies upon ideologically biased scholars such as these whose opinions they cite to support their own egalitarian viewpoint. In their famous 1988 survey of expert opinion on racial IQ, Stanley Rothman and Roy Snyderman poignantly exposed mainstream journalism’s inaccurate portrait of racial intelligence. In contrast to the media-created impression that the scientific community embraces a cultural explanation for low black IQ with near unanimity, more than half of the scientific experts they polled felt that racial IQ differences were at least partially caused by genes. Since then, the evidence in support of a genetic explanation has strengthened, yet the media misleadingly continues to characterize a belief in genetically based racial IQ differences as a discredited notion. When we look at what experts actually believe, we find that an opinion that genes account for some portion of the racial intelligence gap is the scientific mainstream. (16)
The liberal media’s systematic suppression of the truth about lower black IQ must be seen as part of a broader effort to mold public opinion on the issue of race. The reason journalists do not accurately report on racial intelligence, and ignore the evidence for a genetic explanation, is because it does not conform to the egalitarian narrative they seek to promote. In his book Coloring The News, journalist William McGowan exposes the systematic effort by the mainstream media to carefully mold the public’s attitudes about race. Black crime, illegitimacy, drug use, and poverty receive minimal attention and delicate coverage in order to avoid reinforcing racial stereotypes. McGowan recounts how for years the Washington Post, because of race, overlooked the corrupt administration of black DC mayor Marion Barry. Says McGowan, “According to reporters and editors in the Post newsroom at the time, writers trying to pursue stories about malfeasance, cronyism, or egregious instances of patronage in city agencies met with consistent frustration.” The newspaper’s editors feared that candid coverage of DC’s administration would imperil black ‘home rule’ of the city. According to McGowan, “As a result, the public was left in the dark about the city’s increasingly dysfunctional schools, police force, public housing, and child welfare services, to name but a few of the city services and agencies that declined under Barry’s watch.” (17, P. 56)
More recently, editors in charge of publications like The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Associated Press, and The Washington Post openly admit to censoring the news when it comes to reporting black crime. (15) These editors also defend racial filtering of the news as necessary for protecting against racial stereotypes. It is no surprise, therefore, that when stories of lower black ability emerge, such as when standardized test results reveal low black performance, the media resorts to blaming black poverty or some other environmental factor and shuns examining the overwhelming evidence for a genetic explanation. 
Readers who believe that the prevailing dogma on racial IQ cannot be challenged have simply been deceived by the media. Its portrayal of black IQ is politically motivated, does not accurately reflect science, and is intended to mislead instead of inform. Because the evidence on low black IQ overwhelmingly contradicts their egalitarian ideology, they seek to suppress it and censor those who talk about it. As we will see, for those willing to question the conventional wisdom on racial intelligence, there exists an abundance of hard scientific fact that refutes the media’s portrayal of the issue. 
It might be tolerable to maintain the white lie about racial IQ if the intent was merely to avoid an uncomfortable topic. However, the way forward hinges on whether Americans believe that we live in a morally flawed country that requires transformation or whether we will strive for a meritocratic society where individuals accrue rewards based upon individual efforts. The previous chapter, a reflection of the true state of knowledge on racial IQ, refutes the popular notion that cultural factors cause higher rates of black dysfunction. What America needs is not transformation, but a new way of looking at race. Combating the leftist juggernaut requires that we adopt a more realistic view of racial abilities instead of tolerating the myth of institutionalized racism and black victimhood. It means giving credence to science and not to the superficial accounts of racial IQ coming from academia and the media. The only way to defeat the faux racial ideology of the left is with a sound knowledge of the scientific underpinnings of the biological basis of the IQ gap, which is the topic of the remainder of this book.
References
_______________________
1. Gottfredson, Linda S., Suppressing Intelligence Research: Hurting Those We Intend to Help, July 9, 2003.
2. Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 39, 1-123.
3. Wagenseil, Paul, DNA Discoverer: Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites, Fox News, October 18, 2007
4. Kass, Leon, Intelligence and the Social Scientist, The Public Interest, Summer 1995
5. Regalado, A., Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash, Wall Street Journal Online, 6/16/2006
6. Holden, C., Genes and Behavior: Wiley Drops IQ Book After Public Furor, Science, Vol. 272 No. 5262 P. 644, 5/3/1996
7. Helsingin Sanomat, Comments in interview could bring charges of inciting racism against PM Vanhanen's father, 12/8/2004
8. Rushton, J. P. (1999). Secular gains in IQ not related to the g factor and inbreeding depression -- unlike Black-White differences: A reply to Flynn. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 381-389
9. Rushton, J. P. and Jensen, A. R., Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It, 5/10/2009
10) Jensen, A. R., The G Factor, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1998
11) Holt, J., Get Smart, New York Times, 3/27/2009
12) Nisbett , R. E. (2009) Intelligence and How To Get It, Knopf, W. W. Norton and Company, New York
13) Schoenemann, P. T., Budinger, T. F., Sarich, V. M., & Wang, W. (2000). Brain size does not predict general cognitive ability within families. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97, 4932-4937
14) Wade, N., Scientists Measure The Accuracy Of A Racism Claim, New York Times, June 13, 2011
15) Rogers, K., Should race play a role in how the media reports crime, Examiner.com, 10/9/2011
16) Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (1988). The IQ Controversy, the Media, and Public Policy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers
17) McGowan, William (2001). Coloring The News. San Francisco: Encounter Books
18) Fryer, R. G. et al., Testing for Racial Differences in the Mental Ability of Young Children, March, 2006
19) Rushton, J. P. and Jensen, A. R.,The rise and fall of the Flynn Effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black–White IQ gap, Intelligence 38 (2010) 213–219
4. The Brain And IQ
_______________________
Intellectually gifted individuals can provide insight into the upper limits of human cognitive ability. Just as some children effortlessly excel in athletics, some exceptional individuals distinguish themselves at an early age by their genius. Chris Olway, a child prodigy who scored a 200 IQ on the Stanford Binet, taught himself to read at age 2 and by age 4 could perform math at a 4th grade level. At age 11 he scored 710 out of 800 on the math SAT – a score equaled by only 4% of college-bound 18 year olds who took the test – and by the time he graduated high school at age 16 he had already passed 9 different college entrance exams. (1)
Another renowned child intellect, Jon Von Neumann, went on to become among the more prolific contributors to 20th century science. Endowed with a photographic memory, as a child he entertained his family’s house guests by briefly reading a random page from a phone book and, when prompted with a name, provided corresponding numbers and addresses from memory. At age 8 he read a 44-volume history of the world from which he could still effortlessly quote passages verbatim when in his forties. His powers of calculation were phenomenal, including the ability to multiply two 8-digit numbers in his head. A genius of great breadth, he made significant contributions to numerous areas of 20th century science. Among the more prominent were providing pivotal insights into quantum mechanics in physics and game theory in economics; designing the lens used to detonate the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs; and laying out the basic architecture for a computer, namely, the separation of software and data which is processed by a central processing unit containing a fixed set of instructions. The latter, known as Von Neumann architecture, is the basis for all computers in use today.
At the opposite end of the bell curve for IQ are the 5% of healthy individuals with an IQ below 75. These people do not suffer from a genetic malady or from brain damage; they simply fall into a low IQ category as a result of normal human variation. The education system classifies these children as slow learners. In the classroom, they will be observed to have short attention span, slow mental reaction times, and difficulty with abstractions and generalizations. Even the material they manage to learn is quickly forgotten, and critical thinking techniques that would otherwise equip them to solve problems and make good decisions are beyond their comprehension. Their range of understanding is mostly limited to what their eyes and ears can perceive in the present moment. (2) Upon reaching adulthood, they are faced with limited occupational opportunities. For example, the armed forces exclude recruits with an IQ lower than 85 and personnel agencies classify slow learners as suitable for only the simplest jobs such as janitor, packer, and material handler. (3) No amount of schooling or even one-on-one attention will be able to turn a slow learner into a good student.
The reason that some exceptional individuals can learn effortlessly while slow learners struggle just to acquire rudimentary math and reading skills is because of differences in brain anatomy. While all persons have the same brain structures, some are born with those structures better built for higher intelligence. In a similar fashion, all people have legs but not all people are born to be good sprinters. Persons with longer legs, bigger muscles, longer toes and a greater abundance of fast twitch muscle fibers have an advantage for tremendous speed. The same principles hold true for individual differences in IQ: a brain built better for higher intelligence produces individuals who excel in feats of cognition.
This chapter looks under the hood at how the brain works and examines the question of why some individuals display better intellectual performance. We will pay particular attention to the brain structures that play a role in higher-level thinking. We will also look at how the brains of blacks and whites differ, and how these differences lead to differences in racial intelligence. 
THE CEREBRAL CORTEX IS THE SEAT OF COGNITIVE ABILITY
Thanks to modern brain imaging technology, neuroscientists are able to peer beneath the skull and see what the brain is doing. Using technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), brain researchers can identify the locations of increased brain activity, where the brain is processing information, and translate the data into an image on a screen. This allows them to isolate with precision where in the brain particular kinds of cognitive function occur. A researcher will prompt a subject to touch an object, listen to music, or try to solve an IQ test question, and then observe which areas of the brain light up on the screen. Areas of bright orange reveal the location of heightened brain activity. The image below displays the brain of an individual asked to concentrate on a picture of a face; the bright orange area toward the rear of the brain is a region that is heavily involved in processing visual information.

Visual Area Of The Brain Lit Up

The part of the brain responsible for individual differences in IQ is primarily the cerebral cortex. This is the area of the brain where all conscious thought occurs. The entire brain is a cantaloupe size organ weighing about 3 pounds, but most of the brain – fully two-thirds of the organ – is the cortex. It consists of the outer surface of the brain called gray matter, which is made of neurons, and a large layer just below called white matter that consists of millions of axons (which are discussed below) that transmit information. Scientists estimate that there are ten billion neurons – brain cells that underlie thinking – in the cerebral cortex. If removed from the rest of the brain and laid flat, the cortex would measure 2.5 square feet. However, its landscape includes many hills and valleys – called sulci and gyri – that increase the cortex’s surface area to allow more neurons to fit inside the skull.

Life is experienced through the firing of neurons in areas of the cortex. When the fingers touch an object, areas of the brain that processes the sensation of touch become active. Drinking coffee fires up neurons in the area of the cortex that process taste. Solving a problem, wiggling a toe, planning a course of action, listening to music, or appreciating a picturesque landscape are behaviors that entail neurons firing somewhere in the cortex. The cortex is the part of the brain that accounts for cognition – the perceptions, thoughts and reasoning that make up thinking. For over a century neuroscientists have gone to great lengths to try to identify exactly which regions of the cortex are associated with specific functions. We are especially interested in those regions that play a role in intelligent thinking and contribute to IQ differences between individuals.
To facilitate discussions about brain geography, neuroscientists divide the cortex into broad descriptive regions. Firstly, they talk about the left and the right brain. Just as we have a left arm and a right arm, so too the cortex has a left hemisphere and right hemisphere that are mirror images of one another. More importantly, each hemisphere is further geographically segmented into four lobes: the occipital lobe to the rear, the temporal lobe above the ear, the parietal lobe centered at the top of the brain, and the frontal lobes extending from the center of the brain to just beneath the forehead.
While the lobes engage in a variety of cognitive activities, each is loosely associated with particular aspects of cognition. The occipital lobe primarily processes visual information transmitted from the eyes’ optic nerves. The temporal lobe, conveniently located near the ears, processes auditory information but also stores long term memories. The parietal lobe processes the information from the sense of touch, taste, and smell, but, as we will see, has also been found to play an important role in reasoning and higher level thought. Comprising two-thirds of the cortex, the most important region with respect to individual differences in IQ are the frontal lobes. However, the rear portion of the frontal lobes are not involved in cognition. Known as the frontal motor cortex, this region controls voluntary movements such as walking, moving the mouth to form words, and moving the fingers to play a musical instrument. The most important part of the brain for thinking, located in the forward part of the frontal lobes just beneath the forehead, is called the prefrontal cortex (PFC).
This broad overview of the cortex provides a general map, but much more specialized maps are also available. The one most frequently cited by neuroscientists divides the entire cortex into 100 discernible regions, and is called the Brodman map. Each Brodman region is associated with one or more specific cognitive functions. For example, Brodman area 4 consciously controls the movement of body parts; Brodman area 19 helps us correctly identify the things that we are looking at; Brodman area 9 – part of the prefrontal cortex – helps to focus our attention. Brain pioneer Korbinian Brodman created the map, more than a hundred years ago, by carefully inspecting the cortex of cadavers and noticing regions of the cortex made distinct by discernible boundaries and the types of neurons they contained. His mapping of the cortex – predating modern brain imaging technology by almost a hundred years – is still used by neuroscientists whenever they discuss the cortex.

Brodman Map of the Brain

Studies of brain damage highlight the central role that the cortex plays in our lives. Damage to any part of the cortex – as a result of stroke, trauma, or infection – can result in loss of cognitive function. For example, individuals with damage to the occipital lobe can incur any number of visual impairments, depending upon where the damage occurs. Damage to the primary visual areas, where nerves carrying information from the eye plug into the brain, can result in blindness. Damage to secondary and tertiary visual areas higher in the occipital lobe can result in inability to see color, difficulty detecting motion, or loss of capacity to see boundaries. Damage to a region of the temporal lobe that processes language called Wernicke’s area impairs an individual’s ability to comprehend the spoken word. The patient can hear perfectly fine, but they lack the brain circuitry necessary for turning raw sound information entering the ear into understandable speech, and the spoken word just sounds like noise. Damage to an area of the frontal lobe called Broca’s area has a slightly different effect: the patient is unable to turn their own thoughts into words. Without the necessary neural architecture to organize thoughts into words, the frustrated patient lacks the capacity to speak. Studies of brain damage teach us that the brain understands the world through the working of specialized regions of the cortex wired to perform specific tasks. Turn off areas of the cortex and one by one we lose our ability to perceive, think and act.

Broca’s and Wernicke’s area

The cortex exerts command and control over the lower regions of the brain that lie beneath the cortex. Over millions of years, evolution expanded the size of the cortex and its role as conscious controller of behavior and movement. The brain areas below the cortex, which play little role in individual IQ differences, control automatic aspects of movement and behavior like heart rhythm, breathing, temperature control, and emotion. They also contain the wiring that controls body movements at a subconscious level. Before the cortex evolved, these parts of the brain guided the behavior of our pre-mammalian evolutionary ancestors who were only able to respond to events instinctively. Over millions of years, the lower brain remained the same, but the expanding cortex evolved increasing conscious control over many aspects of the lower brain, including movement. The cortex sends signals to the lower areas causing a leg to move, a hand to grasp an object, and all other movements over which we are able to exercise conscious control.
Our primary interest lies in the areas of the cortex that contribute to IQ differences between individuals, which is why we are especially interested in the prefrontal cortex. (See image below) It is responsible for “paying attention selectively to one item rather than another, making plans and revising them when needed, monitoring the world around us – complex functions that are part of our everyday life”. (4, P. 399) The PFC can be considered the epicenter of higher order thought, such as logic, abstract thinking, predicting consequences, and creativity. It also plays a large role in monitoring and constraining our own behavior, making good judgments, and enabling us to live harmoniously within society, and in this respect is considered the locus of civilization in the brain. Neuroscientists lump these higher aspects of cognition under the category of ‘executive functions’, which we discuss below in the section ‘model of the mind’.

Prefrontal cortex shaded yellow

NEURONS
The foundation of thinking in the brain is the billions of neurons in the cortex. In this section, we will convey a sense of how the cortex works by conceptualizing thought as a hierarchy of neuron function. An individual neuron does not appear to be capable of representing useful information and cannot by itself explain how thought occurs. Neurons participate in thought in confederation with other neurons to create a pattern of neuron firing that represents information. Thus, the basic unit of information processing in the cortex is small local networks of neurons – connected by axon-dendrite interfacings (explained below) – that represent meaningful information. Local networks may consist of hundreds or few thousands of neurons, and a Brodman region may contain thousands or tens of thousands of these local networks. Each local network processes information and represents a portion of meaning, one piece of a puzzle, to help a region process information. Local networks in the occipital lobe process visual information, those in the frontal motor cortex control body movement, and those in the PFC contribute to intelligent thinking. The apex of brain function, based upon simultaneous participation from all 100 Brodman regions, is our unified picture of reality.

A neuron inside the cortex

Neurons enable thinking when they become activated and represent information. One way scientists can see neurons in action is by inserting a tiny electrical probe into the cortex of a monkey and training it to keep a thought alive in its brain on a short-term basis. The monkey is briefly shown a colored dot on a screen, before the image disappears for 20 seconds, after which a blue, red and white dot appear on the screen. The monkey receives a reward if it picks the correct colored dot as the item it was tasked to remember. In the interim, while the monkey is retaining the thought in its mind, researchers can see the electrical activity in the neurons in its brain spiking to keep the image of the colored dot alive in memory. A local neuron network is firing axons to represent the image. Like the monkey, our thoughts consist of firing neurons, making firing neurons and thinking one and the same. (4, P. 101)
Knowing how a single neuron works gives great insight into how the cortex functions because the entire structure is made out of billions of neurons. A neuron is a cell (see next chapter for a discussion of cells) with a membrane that surrounds various structures called organelles that supply energy and help the neuron to function. The neuron has one primary purpose – to communicate with other neurons. It does this by conducting a tiny electrical signal in a manner that we will describe below. When a neuron is electrically active, and firing rapidly, it is part of thinking, and when it is dormant it is not. It is the pattern of neurons firing in the brain that neuroscientists are observing when they use functional magnetic resonance imaging to scan the brain. Networks of neurons can quickly cascade into millions of neurons firing simultaneously to change our current thoughts.
Neurons communicate with each other by inspiring adjacent neurons to start or stop firing. The neuron is constructed for precisely this purpose, to send and receive electrical signals from neighboring neurons. Observe the image of the neuron below, first the main body in the center, and then the branches extending from it. The longer projection on one end is the neuron’s axon, which transmits an electrical signal to nearby neurons, in effect urging them to fire or stop firing. The bushy branches on the other end are called dendrites and they receive the incoming signals from axons. A neuron will fire its axon only after many of its dendrites are stimulated by the axons of adjacent neurons. A single neuron has a single axon with perhaps a few dozen branches. A neuron will contain many more dendrites, anywhere from 400 to 15,000. If enough of a neuron’s dendrites are stimulated, it will cause the neuron to fire an electrical impulse that will travel down the length of its axon and all of its offshoot branches. These will stimulate the dendrites that they interface with and contribute to possibly causing nearby neurons to fire their axons.

Neurons communicating

Neurons do not actually touch each other to communicate. Where axon and dendrite come together is a small space in between called a synapse. At the very end of each axon branch, embedded in the wall, are pouches called vesicles that contain molecules of neurotransmitter. When a neuron fires it axon, the electrical impulse acts like a switch and opens all the vesicles down every axon branch, and causes them to empty their neurotransmitter molecules into the synapse. Receptors in the walls the dendrites on the opposite side of the synapse absorb the neurotransmitter.
In our simplified model, this is what determines whether a neuron fires or not. If a neuron’s dendrites are being stimulated by relatively few adjacent axons, the amount of neurotransmitter being absorbed is not enough to change the chemistry of the neuron, and it won’t fire. If a lot of its dendrites are absorbing neurotransmitters, and the amount of neurotransmitter buildup in the neuron exceeds a threshold amount, the neuron will suddenly fire its axon. This, in turn, will supply adjacent neurons with neurotransmitter, and possibly provoke them to fire. Of course, some kinds of neurotransmitters have the opposite effect. When an axon releases calming neurotransmitters, they prompt the receiving neuron to slow down and resume a normal firing rate. This is how the brain calms itself back into a state of rest. Many psychiatric medications mimic neurotransmitters and work by stimulating (antidepressants) or suppressing (anti-anxiety medication) neurons from firing.
As mentioned, neurons represent information by firing together in local networks. A few hundred or a few thousand neurons firing together represent information on a small scale. A single local network would be insufficient to provide our brains with useful information about the world, but each network can represent one piece of a larger puzzle, just as a single pixel on a computer screen is meaningless until all the other pixels around it light up to reveal an image. For example, local networks in Wernicke’s area translate spoken words into comprehensible information. A single small local network in Wernicke’s area would be incapable of interpreting all of this information, but thousands of networks in Wernicke’s area can translate spoken words into meaning. The local networks in a Brodman region begin to spike in response to certain events, such as regions in the occipital lobe processing visual information when our eyes are open, Wernicke’s area coming to life when words are heard, and local networks in the PFC that fire up when we try to solve a problem. No doubt the configuration of local neuron firing changes to represent subtle differences in the environment and nuances of meaning. Slightly different neuron configurations in local networks would represent subtle differences in thought patterns.
A Brodman region, roughly speaking, is an area where local networks are dedicated to processing information to carry out specific cognitive tasks. Cognition occurs when local networks in a particular Brodman region commence firing at a heightened level and are actively processing information. The Brodman region synthesizes the information of its local networks into comprehensible thoughts and impressions. For example, Brodman area 39 comes to life when we are engaged in conversation, as this region interprets vocal sounds into comprehensible speech.
The intense firing of Brodman regions is what allows neuroscientists to observe thinking in the cortex using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Like any cell, neurons require oxygen to do work. When a region of the cortex becomes active, the neurons in that area require much more oxygen to sustain their heightened level of firing, and they draw an increased supply of blood. To observe this activity, fMRI technology surrounds the brain with a magnetic field that detects increased oxygen levels; a computer translates the data onto a screen, which depicts the excited regions in bright orange. For example, when a person is working on a crossword puzzle, fMRI imaging will display the increased oxygen consumption in the PFC.
A tangible example of how the brain represents information is vision. Vision is the brain’s attempt to represent with neurons a picture of objects that exist in the outside world. The advantage scientists have in studying vision is that they can experiment with live monkeys, whose occipital lobe is very similar to ours. Much of what they have learned about vision comes from such studies. To perceive images, our eyes permit entry of light waves, which stimulate millions of neurons in the retina and cause them to fire their axons. The neurons in the retina fire in patterns and at different rates, depending upon the color, shade, and movement of the objects we are viewing. The axons of the firing neurons transmit their signal to the back of the eye to the optic nerve – which is also made of long axons. The optic nerve transfers the information to the primary visual areas of the occipital lobes.
This is where local neuron networks in the visual cortex start to fire and make sense of the information. Local networks process sections of the visual field – perhaps one or two degrees of angle each – based upon incoming information from the retina. (4, P. 332) Millions of neurons – divided into small groups to represent visual information – construct a map inside the brain that represents the field of vision in the outside world. Some groups of neurons respond to lines, some to certain angles, some to objects in motion, or to aspects of visual depth. As the raw information is processed, it is forwarded up the occipital lobe to higher regions of local networks which process the information in more complex ways for subtle differences in color, three-dimensional shape, and curvature. At the highest level, the information is eventually synthesized into a three-dimensional and motley colored representation of visual stimuli that we perceive as the outside world. Further up the brain, in areas of the temporal and parietal lobe, the visual information is matched against memory so that we can accurately identify the objects we are viewing.
Scientists from the University of California at Berkeley are finding that patterns of neurons in the brain closely mirror what an individual sees. Scientists are getting closer to the day when brain-imaging technology will be able to interpret the visual areas of the brain and translate the scenery inside a person’s head onto a screen. At the University of California at Berkeley, scientists can show a subject a series of pictures and scan their brain while they view them. Then they can show a subject one of the pictures, and simply by scanning their brain with fMRI and using pattern recognition software, identify which picture the subject is viewing. One difficulty in interpreting the brain is that information never sits still; the brain views the world like a movie. The local networks that represent visual information – perhaps analogous to pixels on a computer screen – change rapidly to mirror dynamic visual stimuli. The goal of neuroscience is to be able to someday view that movie using this kind of technology. Although perfection of this kind of capability is years away, current efforts prove that local networks and brain regions are not indecipherable, and that the brain uses neurons to represent information about the outside world. (6)
Intelligent thought would occur in a similar fashion. When we make plans, solve problems, think abstractly, and use our imagination, it occurs through networks of neurons firing in those regions that are involved in higher cognition. These areas process and represent information to form a mental model about that which we are thinking. Just as visual information ascends the occipital lobe and synthesizes into a more vivid picture of the outside world, information flows higher up the PFC to areas that refine thoughts into higher levels of abstraction. (4, P. 410-413) Local networks of neurons in specific Brodman regions, especially in the pre-frontal cortex, perform higher cognitive functions like comparing and contrasting, mathematical calculation, analyzing, analogizing, and imagining new possibilities.
It is something of a misrepresentation to suggest that the way the brain works is by compartmentalizing the cortex into local networks and Brodman regions. For our mind to function effectively, all brain regions must be active at the same time and contributing in unison to our thinking patterns. (7, P. 78) Good brain function requires strong connections between regions and constant coordination of information between them. The brain’s ability to share information is at the heart of our ability to think intelligently.
INTERCONNECTEDNESS
It would be difficult to overstate the degree of interconnectedness within the brain. The largest part of the cerebral cortex, beneath the surface gray matter, is the white matter. It consists of axons descending from gray matter and branching in all directions to connect to other parts of the cortex, so that every region is in communication with each other. White matter is white because the axons are wrapped in a white insulation called myelin, a layer of fat that insures axon firings do not slow communication by fizzling out, in the same way that plastic wrapping prevents copper wire from short-circuiting. White matter also bridges the right and left hemispheres of the brain, with a hundred million axon fibers known as the corpus colossum. During waking hours the corpus colossum is constantly firing and transmitting information between brain hemispheres.

Cross section showing gray and white matter

To connect large Brodman areas, even thicker axon bundles traverse the brain and permit communication between regions. Axon tracts are the equivalent of fiber optic cables that connect computers to a network, and they can traverse the length of the brain, from one lobe to another. These thick axon bundles facilitate communication between regions, traveling in both directions, reflecting the need by the brain to update information rapidly in a constantly changing environment. Among the numerous tracts that link regions, a good example is an important communication cable called the arcuate fasiculus. This large axon bundle connects Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, and is critical to our ability to read and speak; without a solid medium of transmission between these two areas, language ability would be seriously impaired.

Broca’s and Wernicke’s linked by arcuate fasciculum

When interconnectivity is interrupted, as when axon tracts are severed, the brain experiences severe impairment. For example, disconnection of the arcuate fasciculus can result in serious language impediments, including what is known as disconnection aphasia – a condition where Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas are unable to communicate with each other. One symptom of this condition is that the victim is unable to repeat words that they hear. Even though both Broca’s and Wernickes areas are entirely healthy and function correctly, the words understood in Wernicke’s area have no way to reach Broca’s area – the locus of speech formation – and so cannot be translated into words. Similarly, when neurosurgeons completely sever the corpus colossum, as is sometimes done to treat epilepsy, it results in split-brain syndrome. One symptom is that a patient viewing an object in their left field of vision cannot identify what they are seeing. Without a corpus colossum, the light waves entering the left visual field cannot travel to the right side of their brain where object recognition occurs. Similarly, disconnection of tracts connecting primary visual areas in the occipital lobe to association areas in the parietal lobe can prevent a patient from being able to recognize objects, and in some cases results in loss of sight. (8, PP. 472, 480)
The apex of connectivity in the brain is the pre-frontal cortex. In the brain, all roads ultimately lead to the pre-frontal cortex, the convergence point of information from the rest of the brain. The PFC assimilates the monitors the information to remain alert to the environment, and to recognize threats and opportunities. As we will see, it also retrieves information from long-term memory to help with problem solving and decision-making. Disconnection of the PFC from any other part of the brain can impair the PFC’s ability to function by depriving it of information. (4, PP. 403, 416)
MODEL OF THE MIND
To provide a conceptual framework for understanding how people think, neuroscientists create abstract models of how the mind works. Pictured below is one widely accepted model based upon a large body of empirical evidence. (4, P. 33) Atop the hierarchy of thought sits the central executive. This part of the mind directs conscious cognitive activity such as formulating plans and making decisions. The ‘you’ reading this right now is your central executive and it plays the most important role in general intelligence. Next, the central executive receives sound, sight, taste, smell and touch information from the senses. As depicted in the model, the central executive constantly monitors sensory information to stay informed about the immediate environment. Sensory input occurs outside the PFC and does not play a role in IQ differences.

In between the central executive and sensory input, working memory is the region of the brain that allows for temporary storage of information in the conscious mind. What we are thinking at any moment consists of information that is currently active in our working memory. However, because short-term memory capacity is severely limited, the brain retains most of its stored information in long-term memory. As shown in the model, the central executive constantly accesses and relies upon long-term memory to aid the thinking process. The culmination of cognition is action: using sensory information, working memory, and long-term memory to calculate the best way to achieve short and long-term goals. More intelligent individuals, with better functioning aspects of the mind, are more likely to embark upon a prudent course of action and to succeed in achieving their goals. We will attempt to understand IQ differences among individuals by focusing on these three aspects of the model: working memory, long-term memory, and the central executive.
The critical purpose of short-term memory is to actively maintain information in the conscious mind. It is the “set of mental processes holding limited information in a temporarily accessible state in service of cognition.” (4, P. 34) Over the past 50 years, researchers have conducted more than 10,000 studies on working memory, making it one of the most explored aspects of cognition. Without short-term memory, the mind could not keep track of thoughts and plans, nor have the capacity to solve the simplest of problems. When the central executive is engaged in intelligent thought it has to manipulate information in short-term memory to carry out its cognitive efforts. Thus, short term working memory is crucial to learning, reasoning, problem solving and creativity. Scientists used to believe that short-term memory capacity was limited to between 5 and 9 items, depending upon the individual, but newer studies suggest the upper limit may be a mere 3 to 5 items. Because working memory storage capacity is so limited, new information entering the mind can push out current information, making it easy to lose track of one’s train of thought. (4, PP. 34-45, 346, 635)
A way to demonstrate this is by trying to multiply 2 two-digit numbers in one’s head. The task entails consciously remembering both numbers in short-term memory, multiplying the first number by the ones column of the second number and then by the tens column of the second number. To arrive at the right answer, short-term memory must be able to store the results of both computations and then add the results together. Persons with larger short-term memory would be able to retain the information in memory while the central executive manipulated the information to calculate the answer. Persons with more limited working memory capacity would more easily reach the limits of short-term storage and have difficulty completing this mentally taxing task.
The model of the mind breaks down short-term memory into two major components: verbal rehearsal and the visual sketchpad. Verbal rehearsal or ‘self-talk’ is the internal dialogue taking place inside one’s mind. Studies show that while awake we continuously engage in self-talk to plan, think about issues and make decisions. Virtually any conscious mental process requires self-talk, which the reader can verify by monitoring their own thought processes. Trying to solve the math problem of the previous paragraph entails self-talk. Trying to remember a phone number requires repeating the number in the mind until we write it down or store it into long-term memory. (4, P. 35)
Alongside self-talk, working memory includes another critical component called the visual sketchpad, which gives us the ability to form an image in the mind’s eye about that which we are thinking. Given the importance of vision for understanding the outside world, it is understandable that we have evolved this capability. Examples of the visual sketchpad include picturing a vivid image of a tree or skyscraper, trying to remember where the car is parked, or trying to draw a map to give a friend driving directions. An architect drawing plans or an artist composing a graphic are examples of using visual spatial intelligence.
The location of short-term memory in the cortex has not been firmly established. What is known is that there is heavy involvement of the prefrontal cortex and that damage to the PFC leads to short-term memory difficulties. One theory is that the central executive in the PFC selects information to store in short-term memory, and then other parts of the cortex sustain the information on a short-term basis. If correct, the visual sketchpad would involve local networks in the occipital lobe, and self-talk would take place in language regions like Wernicke’s and Broca’s area. Wherever the areas of short-term memory are located, they are composed of networks of neurons firing to represent information in words and images that make up our thoughts. (4, P. 409)
Due to the limitations on short-term memory, the overwhelming majority of information stored in our brain resides in long-term memory. When information active in working memory needs to be retained, the brain stores it in long-term memory. Archiving of long-term memory happens on a continuous basis; important information is kept for longer periods while less important information is quickly discarded. Whenever an individual encounters a problem, the central executive searches long-term memory for relevant information and retrieves it into working memory. To a great degree, problem solving, decision-making, and task completion depend upon continuous support from long-term memory.
The ability to learn is the ability to store information into long-term memory. Attempting to understand the process of memory formation, neuroscientists have discovered the critical importance of a more ancient sub-cortical brain structure called the hippocampus. When information needs to be stored the hippocampus starts up, and it oversees the transfer of information from short-term memory into long-term memory. The role of the hippocampus is famously illustrated by the case of Clive Waring, a former violinist whose hippocampus in both hemispheres was attacked by disease and completely destroyed. With no hippocampus, he is incapable of forming new memories and goes through life experiencing a feeling of ‘waking up’ about every 20 seconds. He is still able to access some memories from before the disease struck, but without the ability to store new memories, his only reality is the present moment made of sensory information and working memory. (4, P. 39)
The hippocampus establishes long-term memory by shaping patterns of neurons in the cortex so that they represent information. Neurons form axon-dendrite connections into patterns that represent memories, made out of words, visual scenery, emotions, and sensory information. To form a memory, the hippocampus activates a small group of neurons so that they fire in unison in a pattern that represents the information to be preserved. The neurons that form the memory will manufacture protein to construct more dendrites and establish new synaptic connections between the cooperating neurons, thereby tightening neural connections and strengthening the memory. The saying in neuroscience is that neurons that fire together wire together. Repeated exposure to the same stimulus (for example, practicing the piano) will strengthen memory traces; the more times a stimulus is repeated, the more strongly it will be fixed in memory (practice makes perfect). The memory trace can be subsequently modified by new experiences and refined during sleep when the brain consolidates memory. (4, P. 323)
Although the hippocampus stores long memories throughout the cortex, research has shown that a particularly important region for memory formation is the temporal lobe. In a series of widely publicized experiments, neurosurgeon Dr. Robert Penfield explored the temporal lobes of patients during open brain surgery. Using a metal probe, he applied a small electrical current that induced neurons in the temporal cortex to fire their axons. As the brain has no pain receptors, the fully awake patients experienced no discomfort and were able to describe their impressions. The patients would report vividly recalling childhood experiences, the sound music, and the smells of cooking, demonstrating that our memories are stored in neuron networks in the cortex. More recently, scientists have revealed the role that a single neuron plays in constructing memories. They insert a miniature probe into a neuron in the cortex of an individual, and then present them with a series of pictures until the neuron fires. They have found that a specific neuron will often fire in response to just one of the pictures, such as a photo of the Sydney Opera House. The experimenters are monitoring a neuron that just happens to be part of the memory trace for a particular image. (4, PP. 96, 107)
When it comes time to recall memories from long-term storage the hippocampus again plays a role. The hippocampus will reactivate the same neurons that formed the initial memory trace, so that they fire together simultaneously, and transfer the information from long-term storage into working memory. This is how the process is depicted in the model of the mind, and it is corroborated by empirical evidence. Brain imaging studies have shown that when an individual is performing a cognitive task, short-term memory areas in the PFC and long-term storage areas in the temporal lobe become active. The central executive also plays a part in the process of memory retrieval by consciously directing the hippocampus to retrieve pertinent information from long-term memory. (4, P. 340)
The third, and most important, component of intelligent thought is the central executive. In the model of the mind, it holds a commanding position over the other aspects of cognition, like a corporate CEO in charge of all departments. It restrains impulses emanating from the lower part of the brain and delays gratification while we pursue long-term objectives. It perpetually monitors the environment, and insures that our decisions and behavior align with achieving our goals. Unlike other aspects of cognition – such as sensory processing and movement control – the central executive is not automated and hard-wired to respond to specific stimuli. It is a generalist, designed for flexible thought to adapt our behavior to an unpredictable world, and can form novel thought patterns and engage in creativity.
The central executive attempts to understand the world by constructing mental models. We have a mental model of everything of which we have knowledge, from how a car works, to how genes construct a human body, to how the American political system operates. As models are what we use as a basis for decision-making, the more accurate they are, the greater the soundness of our decisions and the better we can overcome challenges. When we form a mental model of some aspect of reality, it starts out as rudimentary, is always tentative and incomplete, and thus subject to change. The models become more refined and hopefully more accurate as a result of additional experience and more learning. The central executive regularly compares our models to events in the outside world to determine the accuracy of our representations, and adjusts the models as necessary to conform to updated knowledge. Because modern society is so complex, we can only form complex models of a fraction of all knowledge, so we must rely upon specialists who have developed expertise and have acquired a sophisticated model of some small aspect of reality, such as lawyers, doctors, or historians.
The measure of the efficacy of a model is its predictive ability. The central executive constructs models to be able to plan and make decisions that affect the future, and predict the consequences of a particular course of action. In general, smarter people form more reliable models, offering increased predictive ability, and thereby avoid courses of action that result in adverse outcomes. Higher intelligence therefore enhances the chances for success. (4, P. 35)
The central executive uses these models to formulate goals and plans. Our model of the world includes an understanding of our own place in it, what we seek to accomplish, and how to reach those objectives. The central executive formulates long-term plans, such as building a successful business or obtaining a college degree in a particular field, and then carries out the steps necessary to reach those objectives. When problems arise that impede progress, the central executive tries to overcome them by devising viable solutions. As we move toward our objectives, the central executive adjusts to new information and changing circumstances by reformulating plans as necessary. (4, P. 349)
The central executive solves problems, from minor to major, by orchestrating the resources of the brain. In chapter 2 we said that general intelligence is roughly the process of solving problems by taking input data, processing the information, and arriving at a solution. The central executive establishes a mental model of the current situation, defines the nature of the problem, formulates a plan to solve the problem, and then executes the necessary steps. (4, P. 353) During this process, the central executive consults relevant information in long-term memory and transfers it into short-term memory, where it manipulates the information as part of the problem solving process. The more knowledge an individual has pertaining to the current problem, the easier it will be for the central executive to find a solution; the less familiar the situation, the more the central executive will be challenged to find a novel solution. (4, PP. 405-406)
In order to carry out this high-level thinking, the central executive must also be able to focus the brain’s attention. The central executive restricts the many impressions, sensory data, rambling thoughts, and feelings that perpetually intrude upon consciousness and can potentially interfere with clear thinking. By limiting the information that enters consciousness, the central executive focuses the brain’s resources, as much as possible, upon solving the problem at hand. Individuals able to maintain focus and devote maximum attention to a cognitive task tend to be more successful at solving problems. The executive’s ability to focus attention is also a critical part of the learning process. While we have the ability to learn subconsciously, we learn best when we consciously direct our attention and deliberately decide what knowledge we want to acquire. Where the central executive does not focus attention, learning and long term memory are much less likely to occur.
Mental flexibility, a critical aspect of IQ, is another critical function of the central executive. High intelligence is associated with the ability to rapidly change mental states when encountering unfamiliar circumstances and to quickly learn new information and gain insight into complex situations. When we encounter the unfamiliar, the central executive kicks into high gear to try to make sense of things. Someone with a nimble mind can compare and contrast, see similarities and differences, and more rapidly adjust to unfamiliar situations. One of the symptoms of damage to the PFC – the home of the central executive – is loss of this kind of flexible mental ability. Persons with impaired executive function can become rigid thinkers to the point where they are unable to switch from one mental task to another, seriously limiting their ability to function. (4, P. 415)
For example, a top-notch lawyer arguing before the Supreme Court would need this kind of mental flexibility. The justices would undoubtedly pose questions the advocate had not previously considered, and would expect a cogent response. The lawyer would have to consider the facts of the case, the controlling legal principles, and then craft a persuasive impromptu answer favorable to their side. Carrying on such a discussion would require this kind of good fluid intelligence.
The central executive also gives rise to man’s most prized mental ability, the capacity for creative thought. The ability to control the environment comes from this creative capacity. Cognitively, this entails reviewing previous experiences and contemplating existing models of the world, and then manipulating that information to see the world in new ways. Some neuroscientists refer to it as an ability to ‘remember the future’. It gives man the ability to see something that does not currently exist, except in imagination, and then turn it into reality. Using imagination, man has invented new technologies, created works of art, designed new forms of architecture, and forged new types of social organization. The capacity to create has allowed humanity to transcend merely being part of the natural world and to transform the environment into a place of relative comfort and safety. In the chapter on human evolution we will see that man’s creative capacity led to new modes of existence and eventually to civilization.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND IQ
Having considered the neurological and cognitive basis of intelligent thought, we can explore some of the scientific evidence on the neurological causes of IQ differences. The effort underway to identify the structures of the brain that lead to IQ differences is progressing rapidly. While the brain is a complex organ, and isolating all of the neurological bases of IQ is challenging, neuroscience has accumulated a large body of empirical evidence.
The research to date demonstrates a high correlation between structures in the brain and IQ, indicating that smarter people have brains constructed in a way that provides better cognitive performance. According to neuroscientist Olaf Sporns, “Despite enormous differences in morphology and connectivity human brain networks support behavioral and cognitive functions that are for the most part shared among all individuals. At the same time, specific variations in brain regions or fiber pathways alter network topology in ways that can be linked to individual differences in behavioral or cognitive performance.” (7, P. 67) The structures that scientists study to locate the basis of individual IQ differences are the same ones that we have been discussing, including gray matter, white matter, specific Brodman regions, axon tracts that link regions, and structures such as the hippocampus.
As one might expect, the evidence establishes a strong link between IQ and brain size. There are many ways to measure brain size, including the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a particularly accurate method because it takes measurements of live subjects. Psychologist J. P. Rushton analyzed over two dozen MRI studies and found a significant .4 correlation between overall brain size and IQ. (10) Many other methods of measuring brain size, such as brain weight, brain volume, and head circumference, confirm the strong correlation with IQ. This news is what we would anticipate, for we know that more brain mass, and more neurons, would offer more local neuron networks for greater processing power and greater capacity for conducting cognitive tasks. We might suspect, however, that overall brain size differences do not tell the whole tale. Given that some regions of the cortex are more involved with intelligent thinking, we would surmise that the size of these areas would be even more important to IQ differences.
Neuroscientists Rex Jung and Richard Haier have identified what they believe to be the most critical cortical regions for intelligent thought. After reviewing 37 separate brain imaging studies, each of which sought to identify the brain structures involved in higher level cognition, they formulated the frontal-parietal theory of intelligence. It conjectures that intelligent thought predominately occurs in specific Brodman regions of the prefrontal cortex (Brodman areas 6, 9, 10, 45–47) and the parietal lobes (Brodman areas 7,39, and 40). In studies of the neurology of IQ, these areas – and the axon tracts that link them – consistently play a featured role in IQ differences.
According to their theory, information from all parts of the brain flow to areas of the parietal cortex, which transforms and organizes the raw information into more abstract levels of reasoning and meaning. The PFC evaluates the representations for accuracy and suitability, and uses the information for decision-making. The researchers believe that reasoning requires extensive interactions between the PFC and parietal cortex, and that good intelligence is highly contingent upon robust axon fibers connecting the two regions and enabling rapid back and forth communication. Persons with larger cognitively important Brodman areas, linked by fast, reliable connections, have an IQ advantage. (11)
A consistent finding among research studies is that size matters when it comes to cognition. According to neuroscientist Richard Haier, “These findings support the view that individual differences in gray and white matter volumes, in a relatively small number of areas distributed throughout the brain, account for considerable variance in individual differences in general intelligence.” (12) In one experiment, researchers from UCLA administered full-scale IQ tests to groups of identical and fraternal twins, and then used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure the thickness of their frontal cortex. They found a very high correlation between the size of frontal gray matter and general intelligence, confirming the important role of the frontal lobes to higher intelligence. (13) A study at John Hopkins University specifically found that IQ is primarily correlated with the volume of gray matter in a person’s prefrontal cortex. (14) A number of other studies have confirmed the strong correlation between gray matter thickness in the PFC and IQ. (15, 16) In general, these studies demonstrate that comparatively larger brain structures involved in intelligent thought go hand in hand with higher IQ. For example, neuroscientists in a study led by the University of California have empirically demonstrated that verbal IQ is highly correlated with size of the hippocampus, the organ involved in long-term memory. (16) Professor Haier believes that in the not too distant future, neuroscientists will be able to accurately assess an individual’s IQ simply by measuring the size of specific areas of the cortex involved in cognitive ability. (17)
Neuroscience has also demonstrated that persons with higher IQ have larger short-term memory. University of Oregon professor Edward Awh, a researcher at the Oregon Visual Working Memory & Attention Lab, has been investigating the relationship between short-term memory and intelligence for many years. His work underscores the powerful role of short-term memory in IQ differences. In one study, he tested 79 undergraduate students for their ability to remember items on a short-term memory evaluation. They were briefly shown 8 items on a screen and then a short time later asked to recall the information. Professor Awh found an extremely high correlation between a student’s short-term memory capacity and their fluid intelligence i.e. their ability to comprehend novel situations and solve unfamiliar problems. According to Awh, "The number of things people can remember is robustly correlated with fluid intelligence -- the larger the number remembered, the higher the IQ." (18)
Intelligence researchers at the University of Madrid in Spain have confirmed the critical importance of short-term memory to IQ. Their study endeavored to identify the specific aspects of cognition most important to IQ. They administered cognitive tests to 185 subjects and evaluated 8 different categories of cognitive function, including working memory, executive control, and neural processing speed. They too discovered a very high correlation between individual IQ differences and short-term memory capacity. The more items an individual can retain in working memory at one time the better the IQ score. Individuals with large short-term memory, who can consciously float many concepts simultaneously, and mentally manipulate larger amounts of information, are better able to deal with complexity, solve problems, reason, and engage in innovative thought. A larger working memory increases the mental workload they can handle. (19)
Neuroscientists are also finding that cognitive ability is highly dependent upon the quality of interconnectivity within the cortex. Individuals with brains wired with more robust connections between brain regions manifest stronger intellectual performance. Thicker and more efficient neural pathways offer better communication between regions and better overall brain function. Leading neuroscientist Professor Martin van den Heuvel speculates that “human intelligence is more related to how efficiently the global connections of our brain are organized and how efficiently information can be integrated globally between the different regions of the brain network.”(20) For instance, a 2007 study by Chinese neuroscientist Ming Song determined that more robust connectivity to the frontal cortex shows significant correlation with higher IQ. (21) In a similar vein, Yale school of medicine researchers have found a high correlation between short-term memory capacity and the strength of interconnections linking Brodman regions known to play a role in short term memory. They found that test subjects with thicker interconnections had the easiest time remembering items on a working memory test. (22)
Neuroscientists have likewise discovered the importance of strong interconnectivity to reading ability. Using brain-imaging technology, researchers at Stanford University have established that children with good reading ability have a thicker arcuate fasciculus – the axon tract that connects Broca’s and Wernicke’s area. (23) Other neuroscientists have discovered the same correlation with adult readers. (9, P. 126) In contrast, individuals with a smaller arcuate fasciculus have a greater chance of having poor reading skills. Without robust interconnectivity between these regions – affording easy interchange of information – the ability to read is more of a challenge.
A number of studies have found that shorter distance between important cognitive regions enhances IQ. When cognitively important regions are physically closer to one another, the axon tracts connecting them can be shorter. Apparently, shorter neural pathways between regions increases efficiency by reducing loss of information and interference from ‘noise’, in the same way that shorter wire cables transmit digital signals more dependably. (24, 25)
One way neuroscientists can assess an individual’s cognitive ability is through analyzing how efficiently their brain operates by measuring how much energy they use to complete cognitive tasks. Glucose is a sugar that neurons use for energy when they fire their synapses; higher expenditures of glucose indicate that neurons are working harder to solve a problem. Neuroscientists measure energy use by injecting a subject with glucose and measuring their glucose level before and after taking an IQ test. They have found that people with low IQ use a lot more energy to complete a battery of IQ tests, meaning that their brains have to work a lot harder to answer questions. However, the opposite occurs when smart and dull individuals try to solve a very complex problem: high IQ individuals use a lot more energy while low IQ individuals expend less. The low IQ individuals give up trying to solve a problem that exceeds their mental capability, so they expend less energy, while the brains of high IQ individuals shift into overdrive to complete the task and so use more energy. (26, PP. 152-159) Smarter individuals have greater capacity for cognitive work because of larger structures, better interconnectedness, and superior wiring for intellectual performance. 
This is not to suggest that IQ differences are attributable to only those structures that neuroscientists have empirically verified to date. As the scramble to identify the neurological basis of individual IQ differences continues, no doubt researchers will discover additional structural differences that explain IQ variation. The quest is hampered by the complexity of the brain, which makes it a difficult organ to study, but the brain’s secrets are quickly being unlocked. Perhaps faster thinking individuals have structural differences that promote faster neuron firing such as: higher concentrations of neurotransmitter, more vesicles in their synaptic membranes, more receptors on their dendrites, thicker axon myelenation, or a higher concentration of synapses per neuron. Persons endowed with prodigious memory may have versions of genes that produce more protein needed to build axon-dendrite connections when long-term memories are being formed. They may also have greater abundance of interconnections within the cortex, imparting easier and quicker access to long-term memory. It is not necessary to imagine all of the ways that structural and functional brain differences lead to individual IQ differences; scientists have identified a number of them and, as brain research progresses, will undoubtedly discover even more.
The crucial question, then, concerning structural brain differences is what role genes play. We already answered that question in chapter 2. Recall that the most prominent psychologists who study IQ, using primarily monozygotic twin and family relationship studies, assign between .75 and .9 correlation between adult IQ and the genes that code for brain structures. But studies using modern technology corroborate the predominant role of genes in IQ differences, thus bolstering the previous studies. Both DNA analysis and the ability to image the brain are adding additional support to the undeniable conviction that genes play an overriding role in IQ variation.
The most direct evidence comes from a massive genetic study done in 2011. Headed by the University of Edinburgh, the multi-university study analyzed more than half a million DNA locations of 3511 adults, in an attempt to identify genetic similarities among individuals who scored high on IQ tests. They determined that at least 50% of IQ differences are cause by genes. The study concludes, “Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.” (32)
Brain imaging studies also buttress the role of genes. Paul Thompson, a neuroscientist from the UCLA medical school, found a very high correlation between genes and the size of specific brain structures. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), he obtained 3-dimensional measurements of the brains of 10 monozygotic twin pairs (who share 100% of their genes) and 10 dizygotic twin pairs (who share 50% of their genes). He found that genes play a large role in determining the size of the frontal cortex, the seat of our executive functions. The same study also established that genes play an important role in determining the size of Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas – both pivotal for reading and language ability. (13) In another study that used groundbreaking imaging techniques, University of Melbourne neuroscientist Alex Fornito mapped the brains of 38 identical and 26 non-identical twins. He constructed detailed images of the neural interconnections between cognitively important regions, and found that 60% of individual differences between these structures were due to genes. (28) A study carried out by neuroscientists at Yale University School of medicine found strength of interconnectivity within the brain to be also highly correlated with genes. (29) Wherever neuroscientists look, they find that genes play a vital role in the development of cognitively important areas of the cortex. Neuroscientist Danielle Posthuma and his colleagues from the University of Amsterdam support a .82 correlation between genes and brain gray matter volume and .87 between genes and white matter volume, which they conclude contributes to an overall .86 correlation between genes and general intelligence. (30)
Thus, the evidence shows that at birth we inherit the genes that control whether our brain structures develop in a way that is favorable for high intelligence. No doubt anatomical differences between human brains are at least as varied as the observable differences in exterior human anatomy, as a result of the thousands of genes that code for the brain and its myriad structural differences. As a result, every individual inherits a different set of genes that construct the structures of the cortex involve in intelligent thought in a unique way, and endow them with a range of potential for cognitive performance. In the next chapter we will investigate, from the ground up, exactly how genes code for brain development.
NEUROLOGICAL BASIS FOR BLACK/WHITE IQ DIFFERENCES
With a lack of research on racial brain differences – because of a de facto ban on research – we cannot know with certainty how the races differ in brain structure. However, we do know the differences in average IQ are rooted in average differences in brain structures between the races. First, we know that racial IQ test average differences are not the result of test bias, and therefore must redound to average neurological differences between the races. Second, we know that IQ differences are the result of structural brain differences. Racial IQ differences would be explainable by average population differences in the structures involved in intelligent thought, such as gray matter volume, white matter volume, critical Brodman regions, and axon tracts. Scientists could study these differences using modern imaging technologies; they could easily select representative groups of blacks and whites, administer full-scale IQ tests, and then use functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure average group differences in various structures and correlate them with group IQ scores. The ban on racial research within the university system makes such a study unlikely.
We do have studies on brain size differences that unequivocally establish a larger overall white average. When University of Toronto psychologist J. P. Rushton completed a comprehensive review of the studies measuring brain size differences between the races, he found an average white brain volume of 1347 cubic centimeters, compared to a 1267 cubic centimeter black average. That 80 cubic centimeter difference translates into millions of additional neurons, billions of additional synaptic connections, and many more local neuron networks among whites. (31, P. 13) Scientists have been measuring racial brain size differences for over a century and regardless of the method used – brain volume, skull capacity, and head circumference – the results consistently demonstrate larger average white brain size. With overall larger brain size, we can reasonably assume that whites also possess larger averages for specific structures known to contribute to IQ differences.
In addition, we also know that whites possess overall greater brain efficiency because they consistently outperform blacks on reaction time tests. A reaction time test measures the quickness with which an individual reacts to a simple stimulus, such as a light flashing on. Because the test is so simple, and requires no prior learning, it is a more direct measurement – compared to pen and paper IQ tests – of how well the brain functions. The subject sits in a quiet environment free of distractions, and responds to a stimulus by pressing a button. The researchers measure both the time it takes their brain to react to the stimulus, and the time it takes them to move their finger to press a button and stop the stimulus. Studies have shown that how quickly a person reacts to the stimulus is highly correlated with their general intelligence. As the complexity of the basic stimuli increases – such as tasking the subject to recognize the longer of two lines presented on a screen – the correlation with general intelligence rises. When individuals take a high number of stimulus-reaction tests, the correlation of their average reaction times with IQ, as measured by full-scale intelligence tests, is between .6 and .7. (31, P. 13)
The results of racial comparisons on reaction time tests show the same white advantage over blacks as seen with IQ tests. Whites consistently outperform on average reaction time, and the advantage widens on tests with more complicated stimuli that correlate more highly with general intelligence. Because the tests require no prior learning, racial differences in educational background, home environment, cultural experience and so forth are irrelevant to test outcomes. The results are also not due to lack of black motivation or stereotype threat, as demonstrated by the fact that while blacks are slower to recognize a stimulus, they have faster average movement time after their brain registers the stimulus. These results substantiate higher average brain efficiency among whites. When we add Asians to the mix, they outperform whites and blacks on reaction time tests just as they do on IQ tests, again reinforcing the three way racial pattern of an Asian-white-black cognitive hierarchy.
We have every reason to believe that neurological differences between the races spring from genes. In chapter 2 we reviewed the evidence for a genetic explanation of the racial IQ gap. We looked at racial studies on adoption, regression to the mean, inbreeding IQ depression, and wider gaps on more g-loaded tests. All of them pointed to a genetic explanation. We also saw that researchers, using sophisticated statistical analysis, have been unable to identify any factors in the environment that cause lower black IQ. In addition, we have ample evidence that white brains are on average larger, and that they operate more efficiently, as demonstrated by the results of reaction time tests. We can reasonably conclude that genetic differences between the races cause the substantial IQ differences seen among blacks and whites.
Specifically, on average, black individuals inherit genes that tend to build the structures of the cortex in a way less favorable for cognitive performance, such as smaller Brodman regions and less robust interconnectivity. This spawns comparatively reduced performance on the main aspects of cognition, including short-term memory, long-term memory, and especially executive function. As a result, compared to whites, blacks on average form less accurate mental models, devise less effective plans, display lower problem solving ability, exhibit reduced mental focus ability, and possess less creativity to come up with novel solutions. Lower black cognitive function shows up in a variety of ways, such as lower average IQ, lower average academic performance, and lower average levels of achievement and socioeconomic status.
Egalitarians counter that whites have larger brain size and perform better in feats of cognition is because they have an environmental advantage growing up. As far as they are concerned, any organic brain advantages observed among whites are the result of advantages in the rearing environment. Without any proof, they raise the catchall environmental argument to rebut any empirical evidence of racial differences uncovered by science.
The remedy to the egalitarian line of reasoning is an understanding of the totality of the evidence. We have seen that environmental variables cannot explain the 100-year disparity in IQ test results observed between the races. On the other hand, we have seen how structural brain differences powerfully explain this consistent gap in cognitive performance. Clearly, biology, not environment, explains racial difference in intelligence. To make this evidence more convincing, we will look at the way genes code for the construction of the brain during the human development process and cause racial differences in IQ.
References
_______________________
1) Gross, M, Exceptionally Gifted Children, Routledge Publishing, 2003
2) Education, Characteristics Of The Slow Learner, October 1969, Vol. 90, Issue 1, P. 92
3) Gottfredson, L. S., Practical Meaning of Human Cognitive Differences, Presentation Cognitive Enhancement Symposium Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University, June 28, 2009
4) Baars, Bernard J. et al, Cognition, Brain, and Consciousness, Academic Press, June, 2007
5) Bear, Mark, F., Neuroscience: Exploring The Brain, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 3rd Ed., February, 2006
6) Anwar, Yasmin, Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind, Berkeleyan Newsletter, 9/21/2011
7) Sporns, Olaf, Networks Of The Brain, MIT Press, October 2010
8) Kolb, Bryan et. al, Fundamentals Of Human Neuropsychology, Worth Publishers, 2008
9) Lynch, G and Granger, R, Big Brain, Palgrave McMillan, New York, 2008
10) Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (1996). Brain size and cognitive ability: Correlations with age, sex, social class, and race. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 21–36
11) Jung, R. E., Haier, R. J., The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence, BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2007) 30, 135–187
12) Haier, R. J. et al, Structural brain variation and general intelligence, NeuroImage 23 (2004) 425–433
13) Thompson, Paul et al, Genetic influences on brain structure, Nature Neuroscience volume 4 no 12 December, 2001
14) Reiss, A. L. et al, Brain development, gender and IQ in children, Brain (1996), 119, 1763-1774
15) Shaw P, et al, (2006) Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature 440:676–679
16) Schumann, C. M. et al, Hippocampal Size Positively Correlates With Verbal IQ in Male Children, HIPPOCAMPUS 17:486–493 (2007)
17) Gupta, Sanjay, Brainteaser: Scientists dissect mystery of genius, CNN News
18) Science Daily, Clarity in Short-Term Memory Shows No Link With IQ, Nov. 30, 2010
19) Martinez et al, Can Fluid Intelligence Be Reduced To ‘Simple’ Short Term Storage, Intelligence, V. 39, PP. 473-480, 2011
20) Van Den Heuvel, M. P. et al, Efficiency of Functional Brain Networks and Intellectual Performance, Neuroscience, The Journal of Neuroscience, 10 June 2009, V. 29.
21) Song et al, 2008, Brain Spontaneous Functional Connectivity and Intelligence, Neuroimage, 41: 1168-1176
22) Hampson, Michelle et al, Brain Connectivity Related to Working Memory Performance, The Journal of Neuroscience, December 20, 2006 • 26(51):13338 –13343
23) Hampson et al, Connectivity Behavior Analysis Reveals That Functional Connectivity Between Left BA39 and Broca’s Area Varies With Reading Ability, Neuroimage, 31:513-519
24) Bassett, D. S., Cognitive fitness of cost-efficient brain functional networks, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 July 14; 106(28): 11747–11752
25) Li, Y. et al, Brain Anatomical Network and Intelligence, PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000395, 2009
26) Jensen, A. R., The G Factor, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1998
27) Smit, D. J. et al, Heritability of ‘‘Small-World’’ Networks in the Brain: A Graph Theoretical Analysis of Resting-State EEG Functional Connectivity, Human Brain Mapping 29:1368–1378 (2008)
28) Fornito, A. et al, Genetic Influences on Cost-Efficient Organization of Human Cortical Functional Networks. Journal of Neuroscience, 2011; 31 (9): 3261
29) Glahn, D. C. et al, Genetic control over the resting brain, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 January 19; 107(3): 1223–1228.
30) Posthuma, D. et al, The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin, 2002, Nature Neuroscience 5 (2): 83–84
31) Rushton, J. P. and Jensen, A. R. (2009) Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It
32) Davies, G et al, Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic, Molecular Psychiatry (2011) 16, 996–1005
5. Genetics
_______________________
A BRIEF OVERVIEW
This chapter will describe some fundamental concepts of genetics. In order to understand the evolution of higher intelligence among whites we need to understand how genes act as a blueprint for the construction of a human body. With a working knowledge of basic genetics, we will be able to visualize how genes control for the creation of bones, muscles, and organs in a developing fetus. We will understand how slight genetic differences between individuals lead to differences in traits like height, eye color, and intelligence, and it will become apparent why – with the exception of identical twins – no two individuals are born exactly alike. We will examine how a person’s genes code for the structures of the brain that form the basis of individual cognitive ability and help to determine where they fall along the IQ spectrum. We will also see why many complex traits like IQ appear within a population in the shape of a bell curve, and how racial groups can manifest these traits with different averages.
We cannot, in a single chapter, fully explore the topic of genetics, but we can outline its essential features by describing a simplified model. We will begin by explaining how a fertilized cell in the womb develops into a full-fledged infant at birth. It is during this developmental process that every individual blossoms in a unique way and begins to exhibit a unique set of traits. We will examine the way that cells act as a building block for the human body and combine to form various structures like the arms and the legs, organs like the lungs and the heart, and the most complex structure in the body the human brain. Because cells in turn are essentially made of protein, we look at how proteins form out of smaller molecules called amino acids.
Then we examine the critical relationship between proteins and genes. Genes are a blueprint for protein production and they direct the construction of every protein used to build a human body. But there is more to the story of a developing fetus than simple protein construction. We also explore the role of epigenetics, the crucial factors that control the timing and amount of protein production during the development process; these factors are as important, if not more so, in making every individual unique and in determining their IQ. In addition, we look at the way that parents transmit their genes for intelligence to their offspring through the uniting of the sperm and the egg. Finally, we explain genetic mutations, and their critical impact on the evolutionary process by introducing potentially beneficial change to a gene pool. By the end we will understand in detail the relationship between genes and IQ.
THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS BEGINS AT FERTILIZATION
The development of a human body begins when a father’s sperm penetrates the mother’s egg and the resulting cell – called a zygote – establishes itself in the womb. At this point the single cell starts to undergo rapid growth when the zygote splits in two, these two cells divide to become four, four become eight, and an avalanche of cellular division gives rise to exponential cell growth. By the time an infant emerges from the womb it has trillions of cells, and by the time he or she reaches adulthood they have between 50 trillion and 100 trillion cells.
The process of cell division that leads to cell growth is called mitosis. This crucial aspect of development has two prime directives: increasing the number of cells, and preserving an exact copy of the genes in every daughter cell. Mitosis begins when a cell produces surplus protein in anticipation of cell division. Just before division occurs the cell duplicates the genes – in a process called replication that will be described below – briefly giving the cell two identical sets of genes. Each set migrates to opposite ends of the cell, whereupon the cell splits down the middle and the surplus protein quickly seals the openings, and in each cell a nucleus forms around the genes to protect them. Thanks to mitosis, two cells now exist where before there was only one, each with an identical set of genes. Except for the zygote, every cell arises through mitosis and contains an exact copy of the genes inherited from the parents. Mitosis will continue throughout an individual’s entire life cycle because even in maturity an individual makes new cells to replace old ones.
THE HUMAN BODY IS MADE OF CELLS
The infant that emerges from the womb is almost entirely composed of cells. Cells make a human body the same way that bricks make a house. A cell is small – a little less than 1/1000th of an inch – and invisible to the naked eye. Each cell is a miniature life form and carries out all of the basic life processes. In fact, a human cell can live separately outside the body if immersed in a liquid that contains the nutrients it needs to function. Cells have an outer wall – called a membrane – that surrounds a liquid interior known as cytoplasm. Every cell membrane has tiny pores that absorb nutrients into the cell, excrete waste, and permit oxygen via the blood stream. Every cell receives a supply of blood from small blood vessels called capillaries. A cell also has its own organs floating inside the cytoplasm called organelles that perform work. This includes the mitochondria, which turn carbohydrates into a molecule called ATP that give cells energy, and ribosomes which, as we will see, manufacture protein. A cell even has a skeleton – called a cytoskeleton – made of protein tubes that act as bones to support the cell and keep it from collapsing. In its center, every cell has a nucleus that consists of a membrane surrounding the DNA; its purpose is to protect the DNA from dangerous substances or microbes that might enter the cytoplasm.
Individual cells accomplish nothing alone, but in coordination with billions of other cells they help to build all of the body’s structures. Cells adhere together to form bones, muscles and organs such as the lungs and the heart. The human heart, for example, starts out in the early embryo as a formless mass of cells. After the cells in the middle of the mass die off, the resulting tube expands into 4 chambers that are connected to veins and arteries that allow blood to flow in and out. Once fully formed, the heart cells act together as a pump to keep the blood flowing.
In addition to acting as building blocks, cells maintain life by performing many vital functions. Cells manufacture protein, convert nutrients absorbed from the blood stream into energy for movement, and in the case of neurons communicate with other cells. Some cells perform very specialized functions. For example, white blood cells patrol the bloodstream and destroy bacteria, viruses and other foreign invaders that might otherwise harm the body. Cells in the breast called lactocytes manufacture milk through a complicated feedback process. A baby suckles a mother’s breast, sending a nerve signal to the brain that stimulates the pituitary gland to release a specific type of hormone into the bloodstream that travels to the lactocytes. The Lactocytes have unique receptors on the outside of their cell membrane that recognize this particular hormone and absorb it into the cell; the hormone then activates a specific gene within the nucleus to synthesize a large amount of the Casein, or milk protein. (1, P. 20) Below, we will be discussing how cells manufacture proteins like Casein. Cells perform thousands of other functions – such as digestion, oxygen transport, and, in the case of the brain, memory formation – that help the human body operate like an efficient machine.
PROTEINS ARE LONG CHAINS OF AMINO ACIDS
If the body is a fabric, then protein is the thread out of which it is weaved. In fact, the word protein derives from the Greek term prota, meaning of primary importance. The body is made of cells, and cells are made out of protein. Cell walls are essentially made out of protein, the cytoskeleton that keeps the cell from collapsing is made of protein, the organelles that perform cell functions are made out of protein, and even the genes inside the nucleus are held together by proteins. The cells of the heart, the lungs, the brain and all other structures in the body are constructed out of protein.
However, proteins are more than just a building block. At the molecular level they also perform an assortment of functions essential to life. For example, proteins called enzymes speed up virtually every chemical reaction in the body; without enzymes the body could not survive. Hormones are proteins that cells use to communicate with each other, as we just saw in the case of milk production. Another hormone called insulin regulates blood sugar level. It does this when an organ called the pancreas detects sugar levels from a recently digested meal and secretes insulin into the blood stream that tells cells to ingest sugar from the blood. When the cells become insensitive to insulin, and don’t respond to it by absorbing sugar, the result is diabetes. Proteins are also involved in the brain processes that contribute to cognitive function. For example, the neurotransmitters integral to brain function discussed in chapter 3 are also made out of protein.
Proteins are large molecules constructed out of much smaller molecules called amino acids. Just as freight cars link together to form a train, amino acids bind together to form proteins. Biologists call these amino acid chains ‘polypeptides’. A polypeptide is any sequence of amino acids that make up a protein. The body acquires amino acids from meat and other foods that are digested into individual amino acids; these get distributed through the bloodstream to all of the cells in the body and will be used as needed to build polypeptides. There are just 20 kinds of amino acid molecules, and while there is no need to list them all here, three of them are Glutamine, Alanine, and Threeonine. To make a particular kind of protein, one amino acid connects with another in a specific order. The longest protein in the body – Titin – is 34,350 amino acids long, and is a component of the cells in muscle tissue that make it more pliable and stretchable. Among the smallest proteins, the hormone insulin just mentioned is only 51 amino acids long.
The presence of proteins is ubiquitous throughout the body. The human body has over a million different types of proteins, made possible by the nearly limitless permutations into which the 20 amino acids can combine. There is even a branch of biology called proteomics devoted to cataloging all of the different varieties of proteins, what structures they build, and what functions they perform. A single polypeptide is microscopically small, so it requires billions of polypeptides massed together to build a structure such as the heart or lungs. An individual cell, for example, requires millions of polypeptides to make its walls, its organelles, and its cytoskeleton. Every cell in the body is perpetually manufacturing polypeptides to repair cell walls and cell structures, and to create new cells through mitosis. Untold hundreds of trillions of polypeptides make up the trillions of cells in the human body.
The amino acid sequence of a protein turns out to be critical to how it functions. The amino acid sequence determines the three-dimensional shape into which a protein folds after it is manufactured. The sequence also determines the biochemical properties of the protein, which affects how it functions and how it interacts with other proteins. Thus, the sequence of an amino acid gives each kind of protein a unique character, enabling it to carry out a specific task within the body, or to become a building block in a larger structure, such as cells of the eyes or the brain. The properties of a protein used to construct a structure help to mold and shape the way the structure functions. Altering the amino acid sequence of a protein even slightly can change the protein’s shape and molecular properties, and can have a dramatic affect on an individual’s body. (1, P. 229)
We can appreciate the critical importance of amino acid sequence by observing the consequences of a mistake. Individuals afflicted with sickle cell anemia carry a defective protein used in the construction of their red blood cells. The defective protein has a valine amino acid instead of the normal glutamic acid amino acid molecule at the 7th position in its amino acid sequence. Just one amino acid difference in the molecular sequence causes the polypeptide to fold into a different shape than the normal version. When millions of the defective polypeptides combine to build the walls of a red blood cell they form into the shape of a sickle, and this has potentially devastating consequences. Because of their elongated shape the sickle shaped red blood cells can get stuck in the circulatory system’s capillaries and impede blood flow, depriving the victim of oxygen and impairing their health. The picture below shows normal and sickle cells side by side.

Normal and sickled red blood cells.

Amino acid sequence differences in proteins are the very basis of human diversity. A specific type of protein used in the human body can have dozens or even hundreds of different versions, and can cause people who have one version of the protein to differ from individuals who carry a different version. For example, a protein called rhodopsin has 30 different known versions i.e. it has 30 different known amino acid sequences. This particular protein embeds in the rod cells of the eye’s retina; rod cells enable us to see by absorbing light and transmitting the information to the optic nerve in the back of the eye, which transmits the information to the primary visual areas in the optic lobes. The protein is exactly 348 amino acids long, and each version folds into a unique three-dimensional shape and has unique chemical properties.
Different versions of rhodopsin make a difference in how well an individual can see because each version of the protein has a different capacity for absorbing photons of light. The ‘normal’ version of rhodopsin allows people to see in dimly lit rooms, once their iris adjusts to the darkness. Other versions do not perform so well. One version of rhodopsin, with one amino acid different from the normal version, is less sensitive to light. People with this version cannot see in dimly lit areas and suffer from night blindness. This variant folds into a different shape that makes it less able to absorb light photons, making it more difficult to see in areas with reduced lighting. Still another version of the protein results in complete blindness. In this version, the amino acid sequence produces a protein that folds incorrectly and cannot properly insert itself into rod cells. Consequently, the rods in the retina cannot detect light, and through disuse, they eventually all die, making vision impossible. (1, P. 199, 235). So a person’s ability to see partially depends upon which version of the rhodopsin gene they inherit.
Different amino acid sequences can also lead to racial differences, as is the case with skin color. One of the reasons that European individuals and their descendants do not have black skin is because all white people have a slightly different version of the protein NCKX5 than black people. This particular protein embeds into the outer membrane of skin cells and regulates how much melanin can enter the cells. Melanin is a dark colored protein that turns skin black; it serves to block sunlight penetrating the cell and provoking DNA mutations that lead to skin cancer. The Caucasian version of NCKX5 prevents melanin from entering skin cells and turning them black. The only difference between the European and the African version of NCKX5 is at the 111th position of the protein where the white version has the amino acid threonine and the African version has allinine. Just a single amino acid substitution in a polypeptide dramatically affects the trait of skin color.
We now have a partial explanation for individual differences. Because individuals have slightly different amino acid sequences in the proteins that their bodies use to build structures and carry out metabolic activity, they will have differences in body shapes and biochemical processes. Blue eyes versus brown eyes, straight versus curly hair, darker versus lighter skin, and all other trait differences between individuals arise, in part, by differences in the proteins people carry. The broad diversity we see in the human population is partially attributable to these differences. Our primary concern in this book is how these differences can affect individual differences in brain structures, and the impact this has on their cognitive ability, which we discuss as the chapter unfolds.
Protein differences between individuals are not the only cause of human variety. During development of the fetus, molecular factors regulate when and where protein production occurs, and they play a crucial role in making individuals different. Called epigenetic factors, they are critically important to creating individual differences, and we will discuss this topic below in the section on genes. Additionally, of course, the role of the environment also contributes to individual differences. Environmental differences cause even monozygotic twins – who have identical genes – to be slightly different from one another. The trait of height, for example, is dependent upon nutrition, exercise, and other environmental considerations. Severe nutritional deprivation will prevent a child from achieving their full height potential because their body lacks what it needs to grow. Environmental factors also affect the trait of intelligence because they are important during brain development; inadequate nutrition and sensory deprivation can have a negative impact on IQ. However, as previously mentioned, when the environment is sufficient for IQ development – as is the case for the vast majority of Americans – then individual differences in IQ overwhelmingly derive from differences in genetic inheritance.
DNA IS THE BLUEPRINT FOR PROTEIN CONSTRUCTION
The key to understanding genes is knowing how they code for the amino acid sequence of proteins. Each of the 25,000 or so human genes codes for a specific protein with a particular amino acid sequence. The genes are made out of molecules called Deoxyribosenucleic acids (DNA for short). Just as proteins are made out of chains of amino acids, genes are made out of chains of DNA molecules. There are just 4 kinds of DNA molecules – Adenine (A) , Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Thymine (T) – and they code for the construction of every protein in the body.
In the nucleus, the DNA consists of 3.2 billion DNA molecules strung together like a chain. Small segments of this chain are genes that code for proteins. But the genes make up only about 3% of the chain. The rest of the DNA is ‘junk’ that does nothing, or are segments that code for regulatory factors (discussed below). The cells decode the genes and use the information to manufacture proteins.
It is not very hard to decrypt the genetic blueprint. In fact, the secret of DNA is amazingly simple. Three molecules of DNA, called a codon, represent one amino acid. So insulin, for example, a protein that as previously mentioned is 51 amino acids long, is represented by 153 (51 x 3) DNA molecules. The 153 DNA molecules that code for insulin are therefore called the gene for insulin. Titin, the largest protein in the human body at 34,350 amino acids, is represented by a gene consisting of 103,050 DNA molecules. In all, humans have about 25,000 different genes that code for the production of proteins.
An amino acid can be represented by more than one codon. Since each codon is 3 molecules long, and each position in the codon can be filled by one of 4 DNA molecules, there are 64 different possible codons available to represent only 20 amino acids (4 x 4 x 4 = 64). So, for example, the amino acid histidine is represented by the DNA triplet Cytosine (C), Adenine (A), Thymine (T); but it is also represented by the DNA sequence Cytosine, Adenine, Cytosine (CAC). It does not matter which particular codon shows up in a gene since it will still represent the amino acid histidine.
Four of the 64 codons do not represent amino acids, they signal where a gene begins and where it ends. The codon ATG marks the beginning of a gene and tells the cellular mechanisms that decode a gene where to start the process of interpreting the DNA sequence. The end of a gene can be signaled by one of three different stop codons: TAA, TAG, or TGA. When the cell encounters a stop codon then the process of interpreting the gene stops. In between the stop and start codons are the DNA molecules that represent the protein’s amino acid sequence.
With the help of a simplified model, we have now been introduced to all of the moving parts involved in constructing a human body. To recap, here is an illustration of that relationship:

For example, let us say that a cell needs to manufacture some protein for use in building a cell wall. The protein used to build cell walls, called mycodine, is 2179 amino acids long. The gene that codes for mycodine is o9y7 (geneticists assign such a number to each of the body’s 25,000 genes). As the protein consists of 2179 amino acids, the gene is 6,543 DNA molecules long (2179 x 3 plus 3 amino acid molecules each for the start and stop codons). When the gene becomes active, the cell will manufacture mycodine in copious amounts. Each polypeptide will consist of an amino acid sequence in the same order as the codons found in the gene. After construction, each polypeptide will then migrate to the cell wall and become part of the cell wall’s membrane.
PROTEIN SYNTHESIS RAPIDLY OCCURS OUTSIDE THE NUCLEUS
We can better understand the relationship between genes and proteins by examining how cells make protein. We start with a bird’s eye view. To manufacture protein, molecular mechanisms in the cell will interpret the gene’s DNA sequence and make an exact copy of it. Molecular mechanisms will transport the copy outside the nucleus to an organelle called the ribosome, which will decipher the code and use the information to make hundreds of thousands of polypeptides. The first step of copying the gene is called transcription; the second step of turning the copy into a polypeptide is known as translation. Transcription and translation are how a gene inside the nucleus becomes an actual polypeptide in the cytoplasm that can be put to use by the body.
First, we will look at the translation process. Because protein construction occurs outside of the protective nucleus, the cell makes a copy of the gene and then transports it outside the nucleus to the ribosome. Harboring the genes inside the nucleus prevents corruption of the genetic material from bacteria and other pathogens. The process of copying DNA is facilitated by its double stranded structure. As discovered in 1954 by James Watson and Francis Crick, DNA consists of two complementary strands of the 4 types of DNA molecules A, C, T, and G. As the accompanying image demonstrates, each molecule in the strand bonds to a corresponding molecule on the opposite strand in a predictable pattern: Cytosine always forms a bond with Guanine, and Adenine always pairs with Thymine. By design, this double-stranded structure makes it simple to copy DNA.

DNA is formed by two strands 

The process of manufacturing protein relies upon a molecule similar to DNA called Ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is the molecule that copies DNA and becomes a blueprint for constructing the protein. Like DNA, it is made of only 4 molecules, three of which are the same as DNA, Cytosine (C), Guanine (G), and Allanine (A). For the 4th molecule RNA replaces Thymine (T) with a molecule called Uracil (U). Because of its similar structure to DNA, RNA is able to copy a gene and faithfully represent its sequence of codons.
So, to make the copy, the DNA double strand unzips along the length of the gene and exposes the gene’s individual DNA molecules. The gene may be anywhere from a few dozen to tens of thousands of DNA molecules long. An assortment of molecules we will call the ‘transcription complex’ interfaces with the first DNA molecule in the gene and then proceeds to scan the entire length of the DNA sequence until it reaches the gene’s stop codon. As it traverses the gene, the transcription complex builds an RNA strand by adding one RNA molecule to the strand for every DNA molecule it encounters. One by one, every DNA molecule in the gene is copied onto the RNA strand. After the process is finished, the RNA strand represents an exact copy of the gene and is called messenger RNA (mRNA) because is carries the genetic message. The DNA strand zips back up and the mRNA strand exits the nucleus and enters the main part of the cell to find a ribosome.

Cell copying a gene

The mRNA finds a ribosome and the protein construction process begins. The ribosome engages with the mRNA code and translates it three molecules at a time – in codons – to identify the amino acid that each represents. For each codon, it adds the corresponding amino acid to a growing polypeptide one amino acid at a time. Meanwhile, another kind of RNA – transfer RNA (tRNA) – becomes involved in the process. TRNA molecules carry the individual amino acids used to construct the polypeptide. Thousands of tRNAs hover around the ribosome waiting to deliver an amino acid to be used as another building block in the growing polypeptide. Since there are 20 kinds of amino acids, there are 20 different kinds of tRNA molecules that carry them.

Ribosome synthesizing polypeptide

When, for example, a ribosome decodes an mRNA codon for a Leucine amino acid, it beckons a Leucine-carrying tRNA molecule that descends to the ribosome and drops its cargo onto the growing polypeptide. The ribosome then advances to the next codon to interpret the next amino acid to be added, prompting a tRNA to add the next amino acid to the chain. In this manner – one amino acid at a time – a protein is constructed, and its final sequence corresponds exactly to the gene inside the nucleus that codes for it. Once the full polypeptide is constructed it detaches from the ribosome and forms into a three-dimensional shape, and is then transported to wherever it is needed inside or outside of the cell.
This is not the time-consuming process that it seems. A single gene can be copied by many mRNAs, and each mRNA can be processed by many ribosomes simultaneously. As one ribosome advances down an mRNA strand building a polypeptide, other ribosomes can follow behind using the same mRNA as a blueprint to build more polypeptides. A cell is capable of making hundreds or thousands of polypeptides each second. (1, P. 193)
A good example of protein construction is the body’s fight against bacterial infection by manufacturing antibodies. Antibodies are small proteins that latch onto bacteria and other microbes that get into the blood stream; the attached antibodies act as a beacon to the body’s white blood cells to destroy the organisms. When an infection spreads, and billions of bacteria replicate, the cells must manufacture billions of antibody proteins to tag the invaders. Antibody production occurs in specialized immune cells where the gene that codes for antibody proteins gets turned on. The DNA for the antibody gene unzips, the transcription complex makes one or more copies of the gene with Messenger RNA, which exits the nucleus, and interfaces with a ribosome in the cytoplasm. As the ribosome begins the decoding process, other ribosomes follow behind and start decoding the same mRNA strand. Many mRNA strands in the same cell may be processed by dozens of ribosomes producing hundreds of antibodies per second. The antibodies exit the cell into the bloodstream and attach to the bacteria. With hundreds of immune cells doing the same thing simultaneously, the body is able to mount a rapid response to a bacterial infection. (1, P. 192)
EPIGENETICS
Protein production alone does not explain how genes make people different. Just as important to human diversity is the role of epigenetics, the regulation of when and where in the body genes turn on and off. Humans and our closest living relative the chimpanzees are very different behaviorally and physiologically, yet nearly all of the genes that humans have, chimps have too. Humans and chimps share 99% of the same protein-encoding genes. (3, P. 313) Scientists believe that the differences between the two species are mainly caused by differences in regulatory DNA. (1, P. 695) Differences between people – all of whom have the same 25,000 genes – are also heavily influenced by epigenetic differences. To understand individual differences in intelligence, we need to understand how epigenetics affects the human development process.
Gene regulation is a cell’s way of maintaining tight control over protein production. At any given moment the vast majority of genes in a particular cell are dormant. Epigenetic factors control when a particular gene starts to produce protein by controlling when the transcription complex begins copying a gene and by controlling how many mRNA copies it makes. Epigenetic factors also determine when to halt production of a particular protein by preventing the transcription complex from making more copies. After transcription and translation of a gene begins, epigenetic factors continue to regulate protein production by controlling the quantity made. They control how many ribosomes become engaged in the production process, and when to dissolve the mRNA strands so that production of a particular protein comes to a halt. Epigenetic enzymes can even dissolve newly minted polypeptides if the cell already has a sufficient amount and too many already exist. At every stage of the protein synthesis process epigenetic factors regulate when and where in the body to increase, reduce, or inhibit transcription and translation in order to modulate the amount of protein production. (1, Chap 15-16)
There are two mechanisms of epigenetic control: regulatory proteins and regulatory RNA molecules. Regulatory proteins come from genes in the usual manner of transcription and translation. Just like any other proteins, regulatory proteins are constructed with amino acids, and then they fold into a particular shape and have unique molecular properties. The only difference is that instead of joining with other proteins to make some structure, their purpose is to interact with DNA, mRNA and other aspects of protein production to help regulate protein synthesis. Scientists estimate that 2,000 of the roughly 25,000 human genes code for regulatory proteins. (1, P. 561)
In addition, regulatory RNA molecules also play a large role in gene regulation. They are encoded by the DNA in the areas in between genes. Scientists used to believe that the 97% of non-gene coding DNA was simply inert junk left over from evolution that served no purpose. Today we know that some of this DNA is involved in epigenetic control. Regulatory RNA molecules are made in the same manner as messenger RNA: the DNA unzips and gets copied by the transcription complex and turned into a strand of RNA. However, this strand is not a copy of a gene, it is regulatory RNA that performs regulatory functions we have discussed. Regulatory RNA interacts with the genes, mRNA, and the other molecular mechanisms of protein synthesis to control protein production. For example, epigenetic RNA molecules can silence a gene by binding to its DNA start code, thereby preventing transcription from taking place.
It should be mentioned that epigenetic factors are also what enable a mere 25,000 human genes to produce more than a million different kinds of proteins. They do this by modifying the protein synthesis process so that a single gene can code for many different proteins. One way this happens is when regulatory RNA binds to one or more fragments of a gene to prevent portions of the gene from being copied; the mRNA strand, once completed, represents a shorter variant of the gene. When a ribosome translates the mRNA to make protein, the polypeptides will be a shorter version of the protein. Another means of protein variation is known as alternate splicing. Regulatory factors cut and rearrange a completed mRNA strand into a new strand that codes for a different protein. Again, the result is an mRNA strand composed of a different sequence of codons than the gene from which it was copied. A third type of alternative protein assembly occurs after a polypeptide is produced. Regulatory enzymes engage the protein molecule, cut it up, reorganize its parts, and put it back together into a new sequence. The polypeptide then folds into a unique shape and functions differently than the normal protein. Obviously, protein synthesis is a complicated process in which regulatory factors play a crucial role. (1, P. 208)
Epigenetic factors never play a more important role than during pregnancy when the fetus is expanding and traits are developing. Shortly after conception, a zygote divides, commencing a cascade of cellular division that expands into a formless mass of stem cells. These are cells that have not become specialized for becoming part of a structure. Soon, however, different parts of the fetus need to develop differently so that a three-dimensional body can start to grow and begin to resemble a human form. What is happening is that epigenetic factors are turning on the genes in the cells in different areas to start producing the proteins needed to make them into specialized cells that can form the various structures like the heart, lungs, arms, legs, and brain.
Regulatory factors will turn on the right genes to make heart cells in the region of the growing body where the heart will be. In the region where the brain is taking shape, they will turn on the genes needed to make the cells into neurons with their axon and dendrite branches. Regulatory factors will turn cells into bone cells in the areas where the skeletal structure is starting to form, so they can serve as the basis for the arms, legs, and torso. The role of epigenetic factors is to dictate what genes in which cells get expressed so that they become the right kind of cell to help form a particular structure in the right location at the right time. After only 20 days in the womb the fetus has a beating heart; by 28 days the kidneys and lungs are starting to form; by the sixth week toes and fingers start taking shape; and by the eighth week of development all of the fundamental elements of the body are present in miniature form. The heart is pumping blood, the nervous system is providing a sense of touch, and the fetus is mobile in the womb. Part of this process is the production of protein building blocks that compose structures, but a large part of the story is the epigenetic factors that orchestrate the timing and location of gene expression. (3, P. 62)
We can thus see the vital role epigenetic factors play in the human development process and how they make every individual unique. Just as individuals can have different versions of the same protein that help build structures, so too they can have different versions of the same regulatory factors that shape their body. Different versions of regulatory genes and regulatory RNA turn genes on at different times, in different places, and in different amounts that will uniquely form traits such as height, nose shape, finger length, body form, and brain size. In this manner, epigenetic factors sculpt each individual’s body in a unique way and give them a unique set of traits. We should also keep in mind that because epigenetic factors are encoded in the DNA, they are transmitted to offspring just as protein-encoding genes are, and thus they help perpetuate family traits like height and IQ.
ALLELES MAKE PEOPLE DIFFERENT
Regardless of race, all members of the human species have the same genes. After the races became geographically separated roughly 80,000 years ago, no new genes were introduced into the human genome. The approximately 25,000 human genes are shared by all human beings and they code for the same proteins that lead to the same traits. As far as we know, blacks, whites, and Asians do not differ because they have distinct genes.
While all people share the same genes, they can have different versions of the same genes called alleles. This is a crucial concept with which we are already familiar and will frequently refer to throughout the rest of this book. As we have seen, slightly different versions of genes code for slightly different versions of proteins with distinct amino acid sequences. As we also know, the amino acid sequence of a protein dictates the shape it folds into, its biochemical properties, and the way it functions; even a single amino acid substitution in the sequence can have profound impact on how a protein behaves. Alternative sequences of the same proteins are the result of alleles, different DNA versions of the same genes. We have cited the examples of protein rhodopsin found in the eye, the protein NCKX5 in the skin, and the protein hemoglobin in red blood cells, each of which have different alleles that build different versions of the protein and cause individuals to exhibit traits in a different way. For example, a person with the normal allele for rhodopsin has proteins that allow for adequate vision in dim light, while a person with a rarer allele suffers from night blindness.
In addition, individuals also differ because they have different alleles for regulatory factors. From now on when we refer to alleles we specifically mean not just different versions of the genes that code for protein production, but also the different versions of genes that code for regulatory protein, and the different versions of DNA that code for regulatory RNA molecules that help mold and shape the body.
We can now see how it is possible for individuals to develop trait differences. Slightly different versions of the same gene produce small differences in proteins used in the construction of the body’s physical structures. Also, slightly different versions of DNA will code for differences in regulatory DNA and RNA that will differ slightly in the way they work to develop traits. An individual has blue eyes because they carry slightly different alleles for eye pigment proteins than someone with green eyes. A curly haired individual has the same genes as someone with straight hair, but their alleles code for hair protein in a slightly different way. Someone with a long nose or big ears has different regulatory factors that control the building of these structures than someone with a short nose or tiny ears. Each individual has a unique combination of proteins and regulatory factors that distinctively produce every structure in their body including things like finger shape, eye pigment, bone thickness, muscle tone, as well as differences in structures normally hidden from view like the heart, the lungs and the brain. As a result, every human being is unique in many different ways.
ALLELES PRODUCE TRAITS THAT FOLLOW A BELL CURVE DISTRIBUTION
Most human traits show up in a population in the form of a bell curve distribution because they develop under the influence of many alleles. Unlike simple traits such as sickle cell and night blindness, the majority of human traits develop from the combined effects of the alleles of numerous genes and regulatory factors.
Scientists have discovered that even the simplest of traits are the product of many genes. Take eye color for example. While for demonstration purposes we speak of eye color as a trait attributable to a single gene – such as a gene with a blue eyed and brown-eyed allele – the manifestation of eye color is more complex. Using a sample from a person’s DNA, geneticists must examine the DNA sequence of 24 different alleles of eight different genes to be able to predict whether a person has brown eyes or blue eyes, and even then they are right only about 90% of the time. (4). For more complex traits it is impossible at this point to identify the genes that make them. For example, scientists seeking a cure for gout – a condition where uric acid accumulates in the blood and causes painful inflammation – analyzed the genes of 26,714 individuals and were only able to identify 3 genes and their alleles that predisposed carriers to an 18% chance of developing the disease. (1, P. 132) That is a far cry from understanding the genetic basis of the disease and being able to engineer a cure. The identification of all of the alleles for very complex traits like height, foot speed, and IQ – the most complex human trait – is probably many years away.
Human diversity is further enhanced by the fact that every individual inherits two copies of every gene from their parents. Recall that the father donates the sperm and the mother the egg, each of which contribute a set of genes to the zygote. Thus, an individual gets one of every gene from each parent (the exception with males and their y chromosome will be described below), and both genes manufacture the same protein through transcription and translation.
The complicating factor is that parents may transmit different alleles of the same gene. When this happens, an individual’s cells are producing two different versions of the same protein. If the mother donates an allele that promotes blue eyes and the father brown, then the child’s eyes will contain some blue and some brown pigment. (For purposes of demonstration, we will pretend eye color is a one-gene trait). However, each allele need not always produce an equal amount of protein. Often times one of these alleles will be dominant to the other, and the dominant allele will produce the lion’s share of the protein contributing to a specific trait. In the case of an individual with one blue and one brown allele, genes will produce pigment, but since the brown allele is dominant, more of the brown pigment will result. Nonetheless, a close inspection of the eye would still reveal trace amounts of blue pigment.
Very complex traits, like height or IQ, are the outcome of hundreds or thousands of genes and regulatory factors, each of which can have several or even dozens of alleles. No doubt there are many millions of possible combinations of alleles in individual can inherit for the trait of IQ. How complex traits such as IQ manifest in a particular individual is a result of the particular combination of alleles that they happen to inherit. For instance, individuals can manifest the trait of IQ within a normal range of 50 to 200, depending mainly upon the combined effects of the alleles they inherit. 
A good example of a bell curve trait is height. Within a large population, height ranges from very short to extremely tall, and every fractional measurement in between. The genes that contribute to height include those that code for the proteins that build bones, muscles, hormones, and so forth. Epigenetic factors also play a critical role in height development by controlling the extent of protein production and the length of structures like the legs and spine. Every individual inherits some combination of the pool of alleles for height that will interact to determine how tall they become. For an individual to grow up to be 7 feet tall, most of the height alleles they inherit from their parents would have to be the ones that promoted above average height, and relatively few would be the versions that code for shortness.
In most cases, however, individuals will inherit a set of alleles for a trait that leave them close to the population average. Some of the alleles an individual inherits will promote above average expression of the trait, some will code for below average, so that an individual’s alleles in a sense compete to determine whether an individual ends up above or below average. For most people the contest ends with their alleles balancing each other out to leave them fairly close to the population average. It is a rare individual who is born with mostly alleles that promote a trait in one direction, either toward the high or low extreme of the bell curve. Unusually tall individuals just happen to inherit a higher percentage of the alleles that code for great height; very short persons have an abundance of alleles that favor below average height. The distribution of height thus yields the familiar bell curve pattern with the bulk of the population grouped near the center around the average and the relatively rare instances of the extremes represented at the low ends of the curve. Of course, the discussion here is restricted to populations – like in America – where height is not constrained by environmental factors such as malnutrition and disease. (1, P. 68)
ALLELES EXPLAIN IQ DIFFERENCES
Individual differences in IQ are the outcome of alleles affecting the development of the human brain. Scientists estimate that up to 10,000 genes are involved in coding for brain construction, and many have multiple alleles. In addition, the alleles that code for regulatory RNA would also be pivotal to the brain development process. A portion of these brain-coding alleles would contribute to the development of the structures that play a role in IQ differences, like the size of the prefrontal cortex and robustness of cortical interconnections. Each such allele will contribute a slight impact to expression of the trait of intelligence. This was empirically confirmed by a University of Edinburgh study, mentioned in the previous chapter, that examined more than half a million DNA molecule locations among the genes of 3511 adults. The study concluded that its results “are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.” (5) How smart an individual becomes depends upon the interaction of the thousands of different alleles for IQ that they inherit.
Because brain development for IQ involves so many alleles, inevitably each individual will inherit a mix of the good and the bad. Every individual will inherit some alleles that help build brain structures in a way that promotes above average IQ, as well as some alleles that have the opposite effect, and build structures in a way that tends to convey below average IQ. Higher IQ individuals carry a higher percentage of the alleles that promote above average intelligence, while lower IQ individuals inherit a substantial percentage of the alleles that promote below average IQ.
To illustrate, let us consider two hypothetical individuals, Stuart who inherits every single allele in the human gene pool most favorable for IQ, and Fred who inherits all of the alleles least favorable to IQ. We will assume that none of these alleles are mutations or outliers that are present in less than 1% of the population, so that their IQs spring from normal brain development. We will also assume that both of these individuals grow up in middle class family environments that include adequate nutrition, schooling, academic encouragement and all the necessary influences to allow cognitive ability to blossom.
At inception, both individuals begin as zygotes that expand into a mass of undifferentiated stem cells. Within a few days, cells in the region where the brain is starting to form will turn on the genes for constructing neurons and commence the brain development process. In both cases, their alleles code for the construction of the various structures that play a role in human IQ variation. But Stuart’s alleles will build these structures in a way that is better for the trait of intelligence. Stuart’s alleles will code for better versions of the proteins used to build the neurons and structures of the cortex. His regulatory DNA and RNA will be the versions that will direct the unfolding of brain development in ways that optimize intelligent thought.
As a result, Stuart would have a brain better constructed for cognitive ability. With larger working memory, he would have the ability to juggle prodigious amounts of information simultaneously. A larger prefrontal cortex, imparting enhanced executive control, would provide him better attention and focus, greater mental flexibility, higher reasoning skills, and a lively imagination. With larger regions in the parietal lobes involved in cognition – connected by robust axon fibers to the prefrontal cortex – he would also have greater capacity for abstract thought. Stuart’s higher saturation of interconnections throughout the cortex – providing excellent communication between all brain regions – would maximize the efficiency with which his brain operates, and allow lightning fast calculations. With a larger hippocampus and neurons built for better memory formation, Stuart would have the ability to store long-term memories much more easily and then instantly and reliably recall the information whenever needed. Because of genetic inheritance, Stuart would have the brain architecture for superlative IQ.
In contrast, carrying only the versions of genes promoting lower IQ, Fred’s brain would develop brain structures in a way that would yield the lowest intelligence in the normal IQ range. The education system would classify Fred as a slow learner. With fewer neurons in cognitive regions like the prefrontal cortex, he would have less processing power for clear thinking. With a poorly interconnected cortex, ideas would come slowly, he would have difficulty seeing similarities between diverse phenomena, and the possibility for innovation would be virtually nonexistent. Small short-term memory would limit the amount of information that he could consciously contemplate, poor neural architecture for long-term memory formation would inhibit his recall of even recently experienced events, and short attention span would cause him to quickly lose track of a line of thought and make it difficult for him to complete the task at hand. 
If we sat the two down and assessed their intellectual capability, we would easily observe Stuart’s superior cognitive abilities. Not only would Stuart achieve high IQ scores on tests of reasoning, language, spatial and mathematical ability, he would be well spoken, quick to comprehend, overflowing with thoughts and ideas, able to think logically and critically, and equipped to become cognitively competent at any intellectual endeavor. We would expect him to excel in school, graduate from college, and then to succeed in a chosen profession, start a successful corporation, or obtain an advanced degree. Fred, on the other hand, would learn slowly, have difficulty following instructions, display limited verbal ability, and have difficulty solving problems and making decisions. While Stuart would seek out intellectual challenges and make sense of complex situations, Fred would need heavy supervision to be able to accomplish even simple tasks. Stuart would have an encyclopedic memory and an accelerated learning curve, while Fred would probably be unable to graduate from high school. His genes would give Stuart far better prospects for achieving success. 
How genes create individual cognitive differences has implications for racial groups. In our imaginary example, we hypothesized two individuals at opposite ends of the IQ spectrum, one inheriting all of the good alleles for IQ and the other all of the worst alleles. Needless to say, this farfetched scenario does not typify IQ differences between individuals. While everyone goes through the same brain development process, most people of course inherit both good and bad alleles for IQ and fall pretty near the population average. The reason racial groups have different averages for IQ is because some populations can have a higher frequency of the alleles that promote better intelligence circulating within their gene pool. Thus, individuals from a high IQ population are more likely to inherit the alleles for higher IQ than are individuals from a population with a lower IQ average. We will explore the issue of gene pools and allele frequency distributions in the next chapter when we consider how evolution forges average trait differences between populations. But first, we need to consider the means by which traits are passed down to offspring through DNA inheritance; knowing how traits are transmitted to the next generation is integral for the understanding of evolution.
THE DNA IS ORGANIZED
Now that we have a feel for how the DNA codes for the trait of IQ, the remainder of the chapter will focus on how individuals transmit traits to their offspring. Black populations will continue to manifest lower average IQ because they will continue to transmit their lower IQ alleles to successive generations. The process of genetic inheritance revolves around the way that DNA is organized.
The DNA is organized in a very straightforward fashion into 24 separate segments of DNA called chromosomes. These 24 chromosomes contain the entire human genome, i.e. all of the 25,000 known genes carried by the human species. Each chromosome contains a portion of an individual’s 3.2 billion DNA molecules and a portion of their genes. Geneticists number the chromosomes according to size, starting with the largest, from 1 to 22. Chromosome 1 has 247 million DNA molecules and contains 4,220 genes. Chromosome 21 has about 47 million DNA molecules and only about 400 genes. Each individual inherits one of each chromosome from each parent, and each chromosome contains the same genes i.e. the mother’s chromosome 1 contains the same genes in the same order as on the father’s chromosome 1, and so forth for the rest of the chromosomes.
The exception is the 23rd and 24th chromosomes. These are the chromosome that determine an individual’s sex, the first one called chromosome x, the other chromosome y. Females inherit two x chromosomes; males inherit an x chromosome from their mother and a y chromosome from their father. The y chromosome is the one that contains the genes that code for male traits. The genome thus consists of 24 chromosomes: the x chromosome and the 22 non-sex chromosomes shared by everyone, plus a y chromosome carried only by males. When sperm and egg unite to form a zygote, an individual inherits 23 chromosomes from either parent. When cell division commences, each cell nucleus will contain 46 chromosomes that provide two of every gene for females, and the same for males except that they carry extra genes on their y chromosome that code for higher levels of testosterone and other male traits.
DNA REPLICATES BEFORE CELLS DIVIDE
The process of reproduction is designed to insure human diversity. A high degree of trait variation within a population is desirable because it helps a species to evolve and thereby avoid extinction, as will be explained in the next chapter. Because the collection of alleles an individual inherits come from two different people, they inherit a unique combination of traits. As will be explained, not only does this process insure diversity, it also the means by which mutations are introduced into a population’s gene pool to pave the way for evolution. 
Before describing the special process of cellular division that generates sex cells, we will explain the process as it occurs during the normal kind of cell division called mitosis. As discussed above, mitosis is the process of creating two cells out of one. But for both daughter cells to have a copy of the DNA, all 46 chromosomes in the nucleus must be replicated and distributed to the two offspring cells. The process of replicating the DNA, made simple by its double-helix structure, occurs just prior to cell division. For each chromosome, the two complementary DNA strands unzip down their entire length, exposing all of their individual nucleotides for copying. The cell – using a supply of DNA molecules floating freely inside the nucleus – simply adds back the complementary DNA molecules to the exposed half-strands, and thereby reconstitutes the original chromosomes. At this point the original 46 chromosomes normally present in the cell have doubled to 92 chromosomes. Half of the chromosomes migrate to one end of the cell, and half to the other, and then the cell splits in two. The result is two daughter cells with identical sets of chromosomes and mitosis is complete.

Replication of a chromosome

MEIOSIS PRODUCES SEX CELLS
The process of generating sex cells – the egg and the sperm – is called meiosis. Mitosis is ordinary cell replication that occurs in the rest of the body. Meiosis occurs only in the ovaries of a female and the testicles of a male where the sex cells are manufactured. Whereas mitosis divides a cell into two identical cells, the objective of meiosis is to turn a single cell into 4 sex cells – each with 23 chromosomes that contain a unique collection of alleles.
Generating a sperm or an egg that has only 23 chromosomes starts out the same way as mitosis. It begins with the usual replication of DNA: the 46 double-stranded chromosomes unzip, resulting in 92 separate DNA strands with their molecules exposed; complementary DNA molecules then bind to the exposed molecules to reform the chromosomes, giving the cell 92 chromosomes. However, once all of the chromosomes replicate, something different happens during meiosis. The chromosomes line up and exchange genetic material. The two chromosomes 1 inherited from the father face the two chromosomes 1 inherited from the mother and bits of DNA randomly break off from the chromosomes, float to the opposite parental chromosome and switch places. Each of the 92 chromosomes in the cell now includes alleles inherited from both the mother and father. This shuffling of the deck is called crossing over.
At this point, 46 chromosomes migrate to either end of the cell and the cell divides into two daughter cells. Unlike with mitosis, the DNA in the daughter cells is not identical; each has a unique combination of alleles because, as a result of crossing over, they contain a random mix of paternal and maternal alleles. The important thing to know is that each daughter cell now has genetically diverse chromosomes with a unique assortment of alleles.
Unlike with mitosis, the first cell division does not finish meiosis. In order to end up with sperm and egg cells with only 23 chromosomes, the two daughter cells must divide again. In each daughter cell a set of 23 chromosomes migrates to opposite ends after which the cells split in two. We now have 4 distinct sex cells, each with 23 chromosomes, that contain a random mixture of maternal and paternal chromosomes 1-22 plus a sex chromosome, and each contains a unique assortment of alleles.
This process is able to create virtually infinite human diversity. Taking into consideration the countless alleles for proteins and regulatory factors contained in the human gene pool, we can see that there are billions of possible combinations of alleles that a zygote may inherit. It is no wonder that no two individuals are ever born exactly alike (with the exception of monozygotic twins that spring from the same zygote). The future offspring has a mixture of alleles that comes from all 4 of its grandparents. The zygote will divide, the genes will start producing proteins, and regulatory factors will begin forming a fetus with the traits of its grandparents. If all of the grandparents contributed many alleles for high IQ then it is highly likely the newborn will end up with well above average intelligence.
MUTATIONS PRODUCE NOVEL ALLELES
One final issue crucial to understanding evolution that must be discussed is genetic mutation. Mutations are accidental modifications to the sequence of DNA that can potentially change the way a gene codes for a protein. They occur during DNA replication just before the cell divides. Although mutations can happen during mitosis, we are not concerned about it since mutations to normal cells are not transmitted to offspring and do not affect evolution. Our only interest is the mutations to DNA that occur during meiosis, when the sex cells form, because these mistakes can be transmitted to offspring and may affect a how a population evolves.
Mutations occur just prior to cell division at the time of DNA replication. Cells are very accurate at replicating DNA but the process is not flawless. When the DNA of a chromosome unzips and the cell begins manufacturing a complementary strand, sometimes it adds back an incorrect DNA molecule to the reforming strand. Perhaps the replication process will insert a guanine nucleotide where adenine should be or thymine where a cytosine is called for. The insertion of the wrong DNA molecule within the strand is called a point mutation, and the outcome is a change to the genetic code in the replicated strand. There are other less common kinds of mutations but the result is the same, a slight modification of the parental DNA that can be inherited by an offspring. These simple mistakes, although rare, are important because they have the potential to create a new allele that can change the physical or behavioral attributes of an organism.
We are only interested in mutations when they change the DNA in a way that improves an existing trait. The vast majority of mutations do not improve a trait. The simple fact that some part of the DNA mutates during replication does not mean that it will affect how a body functions or how a person behaves. If the mutation alters a nucleotide within a strip of junk DNA then it has no impact, since the cell will not transcribe and translate it. Even if the mutation occurs to a gene or to the DNA that codes for epigenetic factors, the chances are overwhelming that it will have a deleterious impact on form or function. The human genome is a culmination of hundreds of millions of years of evolution that endow us with the traits necessary for survival; a random change to a coding segment of the DNA will normally harm that ability. Often times the effects of a mutation are so disastrous the fetus is spontaneously aborted, the fate of most pregnancies. A mutation may also have no effect on an organism’s survivability. A neutral mutation will effect changes that neither harm nor enhance an organism’s ability to function, and such a change will not affect evolution.
When a mutation occurs that enhances an individual’s ability to function, the possibility exists that it will play a role in the evolution of a species. A beneficial mutation is one that changes the DNA sequence of an allele so that it codes for a different version of a protein or a different version of a regulatory factor, in a way that improves an organism’s anatomy or behavior. Let’s examine in precise detail at how such a mutation might occur. Imagine the creation of a sperm cell during meiosis in the testicles of a male. Imagine that chromosome 11 contains a segment of DNA that codes for epigenetic RNA that plays a role in regulating the size of gray matter in the prefrontal cortex during fetal development. During meiosis, a cell undergoing DNA replication will unzip chromosome 11, exposing its DNA molecules, and then re-form the double strands. If, during this process, the cell accidentally adds back an adenine molecule at a location where guanine was needed, at the location of the allele, then it has changed the coding for this regulatory RNA by one molecule. Let us envisage a scenario where the new RNA factor, with its new molecular sequence, behaves somewhat differently than the old version, and promotes slightly larger development of PFC gray matter. After meiosis is complete, this particular mutated allele will end up in one of the sperm cells, and if during reproduction this sperm cell happens to impregnate an egg to form a zygote, the offspring will inherit the beneficial mutation as part of its DNA. As a result, the offspring will have one more allele pushing it in the direction of higher IQ.
When favorable mutations like this occur, the recipient may transmit the favorable allele to their offspring, who in turn may also proliferate the allele. As time passes and more members of a population carry the beneficial allele, it will increase a population’s fitness for that environment. The next chapter will continue the discussion of alleles and mutations, but will consider their impact on populations. As we will see, genetic mutations of this type played a role in the evolution of higher white intelligence.
References
_______________________
1. Hartwell, Leland, H. et al, Genetics: From Genes To Genomes, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 2011
2. Weiss, R., Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin, Washington Post, December 16, 2005
3. Lewis, R., Human Genetics, 7th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 2007
4. Liu, Fan et al, Eye Color And The Prediction Of Complex Phenotypes From Genotypes, Current Biology, Volume 19, Issue 5, 3/10/2009
5) Davies, G et al, Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic, Molecular Psychiatry (2011) 16, 996–1005
6. Evolution
_______________________
OVERVIEW
As we take up the topic of evolution we move our focus from individuals to populations. A population’s gene pool can evolve over time and lead to physical and behavioral transformation. Witness, for instance, the evolution of reptiles into birds or chimpanzees into humans. Evolution also creates racial differences by transforming some members of a species into separate races over the course of tens of thousands of years. Learning how evolution changes a population’s gene pool will help us to understand how blacks and whites evolved racial differences in IQ. The next chapter will detail the unique evolutionary histories of the human races that led to racial differences in IQ average. This precursor chapter lays the groundwork by outlining the general principles by which evolution operates on a population’s gene pool.
This question of how racial differences develop is similar to the question Charles Darwin attempted to answer in his book The Origin of the Species. At the time Darwin wrote the book in 1859, scientists were trying to come up with a natural explanation for the incredible diversity of species inhabiting the planet – everything from blue whales to crocodiles to great apes. Many of Darwin’s contemporaries believed that the physical transformation of a species followed from its behavior, so that if an individual repeated certain actions during its lifetime that changed a part of its anatomy, then it would transmit the feature to its offspring. For example, giraffes stretching to eat leaves from trees would elongate their necks and then transmit the long neck trait to their children. Successive generations engaging this behavior supposedly evolved giraffes into the long necked creatures seen today. Skeptical of this explanation, Darwin accumulated evidence during his iconic 1820-1824 voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle that led him to formulate some novel theories on the nature of evolutionary change.
DARWIN IDENTIFIED SOME BASIC EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES
During the 5-year voyage that began in 1820, Darwin gathered important evidence by examining many species he encountered on his journey. In particular, the time he spent exploring the Galapagos Islands was especially informative. A keen observer, he carefully filled his notebooks with sketches of assorted species and marked the variations among them on the different islands. He perceived, for instance, that 13 distinct varieties of finches on 13 different islands were essentially alike but with slight but noticeable differences in physical form and behavior. For example, he observed that on the islands where finches relied upon a diet of insects the birds possessed long sharp beaks that enabled them to reach their prey, while on those islands where the finches dieted on seeds they had short thick beaks for breaking hulls. The finches from one island rarely interbred with finches from other islands because distance kept them isolated, leading Darwin to surmise that races of finches had evolved differently to adapt to local conditions.
Darwin’s impressions led him to elucidate the principles of evolution that are as valid today as they were then. He asserted that all members of a species must attempt to survive and reproduce in a particular environment, as diverse as the frozen tundra in the north to the tropical climates near the equator. Since no environment has infinite resources, individuals must compete for food, shelter, and mating opportunities. He also maintained that individual members of a population display a wide variety of traits, and that inevitably some individuals are bigger, some faster, and some smarter than others.
The advantage, said Darwin, goes to individuals with the physical and behavioral traits more suited to exploiting the resources of a particular environment; they are more likely to survive and, more importantly, to produce more offspring to whom they transmit their advantageous traits. Offspring that inherit the advantageous traits also have increased chance to survive and produce more offspring into the next generation than those who lack them. According to Darwin’s theory, over time advantageous traits become increasingly common within a population, and change its physical and behavioral characteristics to better adapt it to the environment. Darwin believed that, given enough time, this transformation process could lead to entirely new species. He further conjectured that it produced every species inhabiting the planet and called it “natural selection”.
At the time he popularized the idea of natural selection, Darwin knew that parents transmit traits to their offspring but he did not know that genes were the vehicle of transmission. It was not until about 1900 that biologists recognized the role of DNA. Modern evolutionary science synthesizes Darwin’s principles of natural selection with the science of genetics to provide a more complete understanding of how evolution works. This modern understanding of evolution is known as population genetics.
POPULATIONS ARE THE BASIC UNIT OF EVOLUTION
When studying evolution the focus is on populations. While individuals contribute to the evolutionary process when they reproduce, they themselves do not evolve, since their DNA cannot change during their lifetime. In contrast, over the course of tens of thousands of years, a population can undergo physical and behavioral transformation as its gene pool adapts to a particular environment. Humans, for example, look and act very differently than chimpanzees, our closest living ape ancestor, because of more than 6 million years of evolutionary change.
It is important to keep in mind the difference between a population – the basic unit of evolution – and a species. The planet hosts millions of species, including cheetahs, wolves, alligators, chimpanzees, and Homo sapiens. A species is roughly defined as a group of organisms whose genetic similarity renders them capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. However, membership in a species does not necessarily entail membership in the same population. A population by definition includes only those members of a species who are sharing genes because they have sufficient access to each other to be able to mate and exchange alleles.
Cheetahs in Northern Iran, for example, are capable of breeding with Cheetahs in Africa, but do not because of the thousands of miles separating them. Although they are members of the same species, and are perfectly capable of producing offspring together, distance prevents them from mating and mingling genes. Because of this, they have the potential to travel down distinct evolutionary paths, and thus they represent two distinct populations. Blacks and whites are members of the same species but, as will be detailed in the next chapter, in the past they were distinct populations, separated by physical barriers, and for a protracted period were not interbreeding. Because the black and white populations underwent tens of thousands of years of separate evolution, modern geneticists can easily distinguish a black person from a white person simply by comparing their DNA.
A population’s gene pool endows its members with the physical and behavioral traits necessary for survival. Tigers have a gene pool that gives their offspring speed, strength, and sharp claws to hunt and kill prey. Turtles have the genes that produce a hardened shell in which to retreat when under attack. Coyotes have the genes that give them the cunning to outsmart prey. Genes, after all, code for the proteins that are the building blocks that make the structures of an organism’s body, and epigenetic DNA shapes those proteins into structures during development. Genes and regulatory factors also code for the brain development that leads to a population’s behavioral repertoire. Thus, a species’ gene pool arms its members with the traits that they need to cope with the challenges posed by a particular environment.
But gene pools also limit a population’s ability to adapt by restricting how its members can respond to an environment. An attempt to introduce tigers into the habitat of Antarctica will fail, as the population’s gene pool does not give its members the physical and behavioral traits needed to survive in the frigid environment. A hippopotamus will not grow wings and a squirrel will not sprout tusks during gestation because the genes to produce these features are not present within their DNA. A species’ ability to adapt to a particular environment is limited to the traits with which evolution has endowed it.
These limitations are not set in stone, however, because gene pools are malleable. With the right environmental pressures and sufficient time (perhaps tens or hundreds of millions of years) squirrels could evolve tusks, hippos wings, and a population of tigers living in a gradually cooling environment might eventually evolve the traits that would allow them to survive in the most frigid parts of the planet. In the next section we will look at how the environment molds a population’s gene pool over time to bring about such change.
A gene pool can be broken down in two ways. Firstly, a gene pool consists of the sum total of all of the genes and their alleles in the collective DNA of a population. Consider for instance the 7 billion humans inhabiting the planet, each with approximately 25,000 separate genes. Many of their genes have more than one allele, and some genes have hundreds of alleles. Beyond genes, people also have different versions of the regulatory factors that influence the development process during gestation. Theoretically, geneticists could identify every allele contained in the human DNA by sampling the genetic makeup of all 7 billion persons and identifying every unique allele of every gene and regulatory factor. This would represent a complete cataloguing of the human gene pool.
While such a task would be impossible to carry out in practice, nonetheless, we can still talk about a human gene pool in a theoretical sense. More importantly, we will be discussing the white gene pool and the black gene pool when talking about racial differences between the two populations. The white gene pool consists of all of the alleles carried by all the members of the white population, and the black gene pool consists of all of the alleles that exist within the black population. We know that there is tremendous overlap between the gene pools of the races but there are also significant differences as will become apparent as the discussion unfolds. Distinct gene pools give the races identifiable trait differences such as skin color and IQ average.
Secondly, a population’s gene pool is defined by the prevalence of particular alleles. Within any population, a particular allele shows up in the DNA of its members a finite number of times; the percentage of a population who carry a particular allele is called the allele’s frequency distribution. For example, suppose that a single gene codes for chin shape, and that the gene has two alleles: allele A codes for a chin dimple, and allele B codes for a smooth surface chin. Assuming that the A allele is dominant then how the trait affects the population would depend upon its frequency distribution. If only 1% of the population carried the A allele then individuals with dimples would be very rare. If 99% carried the A allele then persons with un-dimpled chins would rarely be seen. If half the population carried A then we would see an equal distribution between dimpled and un-dimpled chins. How an allele affects a population depends upon how many members carry it.
A good illustration is the trait of sickle cell anemia. In the previous chapter, we said that sickle shaped red blood cells clog capillaries and restrict blood-flow to cells, resulting in oxygen deprivation and severe health problems. The gene for the protein used to build red blood cells has two alleles, one for the normal disc shaped cells, and an alternative allele that codes for the defective sickle cells.
The frequency distribution of the two alleles has important health consequences for persons who live in malaria-stricken Africa. Malaria is a parasite that infects red blood cells and is a leading cause of death in parts of Africa. However, individuals who carry the sickle cell allele are protected against the disease because their immune system systematically discards the misshapen sickle cells and the parasites with them. About two-thirds of black Africans do not carry the sickle cell gene and have no protection against malaria. But almost a third of sub-Saharan Africans carry one sickle cell allele and one normal red blood cell allele, so that half of their red blood cells are normal. As a result, they have enough normal oxygen flow to remain healthy, and enough discarding of infected sickle cells to keep malaria from overwhelming their immune system. The frequency distribution of the sickle cell allele thus gives approximately one-third of black Africans enough immunity to live a normal life when infected by malaria. The frequency distribution of sickle cell among whites is near 0, so that almost no whites carry the allele. As a result, for hundreds of years before the advent of modern medicine, white people were unable to live in many parts of Africa because of the threat of malaria.
Many of our genes have no alleles at all and are known as fixed genes. Every member of a population carries the same version of the fixed gene because they code for biological structures that are necessary for life. A mutation that alters a fixed gene during sex cell creation will likely impair an organism’s ability to function, and will be eliminated by natural selection. Fixed genes are not a source of diversity within a population because every member has the same DNA sequence for the gene.
With an understanding of the meaning of a gene pool, we can now state what evolution means from a population genetics perspective. Evolution occurs when the frequency distribution of an allele within a population’s gene pool increases or decreases. For example, if the frequency of the sickle cell allele among Africans increased from 33 % to 50% then we would say that the gene pool of the African population evolved. In practice, geneticists consider about a 1% change in allele frequency within a population to be evolutionarily significant.
Evolution also occurs – on a micro level – when unique alleles arise and disappear from a gene pool. When a member of a population inherits a unique mutated allele, from one of its parental sex cells, then the gene pool of the population technically speaking has evolved. It is only important, however, if the mutation increases fitness for a particular environment, and the allele proliferates within the gene pool. In this case, the character of a population will change over time to make it measurably bigger, faster, smarter or in some other way more fit for the environment. Finally, evolution occurs when a unique allele disappears from a gene pool when the only remaining carrier of the allele dies. For example, an allele that at one time may have had a high frequency within a population may become maladaptive and start to disappear. When the last carrier of the alleles dies without reproducing then evolution occurs, on a very small scale; the allele’s frequency distribution drops to zero and it no longer affects a population’s traits.
RACES
Two distinct populations from the same species can have very different gene pools. This is why, for example, different pure breeds of dogs – all members of the canine species and the equivalent of races – can look and behave so different. First, populations can have different frequency distributions of alleles that they have in common, so that one population can have a higher percentage of carriers of a particular allele. If only 1% of the white population carried the allele for dimpled chins, but 50% of blacks carried the allele, then the dimpled chin trait would be common among blacks but rare among whites. The same allele circulates within both gene pools, but one population has a higher percentage of carriers and is visibly different because of it.
Consider the frequency distribution of the alleles for the trait of lactose tolerance. About 10,000 years ago, a mutation arose in the Caucasian gene pool for the gene for the enzyme lactase, which the stomach uses to digest the sugar called lactose found in milk. Normally, the gene for lactase stops producing the enzyme after the first few years of life, and adults cannot digest the lactose. This is the case for most Asians and blacks. Thanks to the new Caucasian allele, the ability of whites to drink milk persists into adulthood and gives Europeans the ability to expand their adult diet to include milk. About 95% of people with northern European ancestry carry the new allele and are lactose tolerant, while only about 5% of Africans and Asians carry this allele and can drink milk in adulthood. (1)
There is an important second way that population gene pools can differ. One population can have a unique version of an allele that the other population lacks. This occurs when a particular allele is circulating within the gene pool of one population but is entirely absent from the gene pool of the other. The first population may have a percentage of individuals who carry the unique allele, while the second population has no members who carry the allele. Allele uniqueness such as this also contributes to noticeable trait differences between two populations.
Skin color illustrates the case of allele uniqueness between populations. As discussed in the last chapter, tens of thousands of years ago, a mutation arose within the Caucasian gene pool that affected skin color. This particular allele codes for a protein that embeds in the membrane of skin cells and regulates the passage of molecules into the cells; it also restricts the entry of melanin, the dark protein that turns skin cells black. Within a very short time the allele became fixed within the Caucasian gene pool. No black Africans have this allele and so, with the exception of albinos, there are no pure Africans with melanin-free skin cells.
Populations from the same species frequently show different averages for a trait. As we discussed in the previous chapter, populations display most traits in the form of a bell curve distribution centered around an average. It reflects the fact that many alleles contribute to the manifestation of traits, and members of a population can inherit these alleles in a wide variety of combinations. Both populations will display a trait in a bell curve fashion, but often their averages will differ. Partly this is due to different frequency distributions of alleles common to both gene pools. A population with a higher frequency distribution for an allele that promotes above average development of a trait will be more likely to have a higher population average. A population that has a greater frequency distribution for many alleles that promote above average development of a trait will probably have a much higher average. It can also be due, in part, to allele uniqueness, where one population has alleles that push a trait in a higher direction, and the gene pool of the second population lacks these alleles entirely. The unique alleles would exacerbate the higher average of the first population, but have no impact on the trait for the second population.
Caucasian and Asian populations display different averages for height because of differences in their gene pools. The Caucasian male average is about 5’ 10’’ tall; that for Asian males is about 5’ 5’’. In both populations, the same genes and regulatory factors code for height. What leads to significantly different averages is the two distinct gene pools carrying different frequencies of the alleles that determine height. The Caucasian population has a higher percentage of those alleles, shared by both gene pools, which contribute to greater height. Examples might include alleles for hormones that spur more growth or regulatory factors that code for greater protein production. In addition, Caucasians would undoubtedly have alleles for growth that would be lacking within the Asian gene pool. These alleles would promote tallness in whites but not in Asians, and would therefore contribute to the higher white average. While both the white and Asian populations display height in a bell curve fashion, the higher frequency of tall alleles among whites give it a higher average, and the higher percentage of shorter alleles among Asians give them the lower average height.
The same kinds of gene pool differences explain the distinct African and European IQ averages. In part, racial IQ differences come from different frequency distributions of the genetic and regulatory alleles that promote higher IQ. Among the alleles that play a role in cognitive ability that are common to both gene pools, whites have a higher frequency of the ones that code for above average IQ. But, in addition, no doubt whites have alleles for brain development in their gene pool that black Africans do not have. Just as whites have unique alleles for skin color, they would also have unique alleles that contribute to the development of brain structures. White alleles promoting higher IQ that are lacking in the black gene pool would increase the IQ gap between the races. For example, if 50 percent of whites carry a racially unique allele that improves IQ, but the frequency distribution for this allele among blacks is zero, then the allele would partly explain the higher white average. The next chapter will explain how whites evolved a higher frequency distribution for alleles that promote higher IQ.
THE ENVIRONMENT FORGES EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN A POPULATION
Thus far we have failed to emphasize the most critical aspect of evolution, the role played by the environment. As Darwin revealed, populations adapt to be able to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. When the environment changes significantly – as happens quite frequently, at least in geologic time – populations adapt to the environment through a changing gene pool. As we have discussed, this occurs by mutations and shifting allele frequencies. When the environment changes and challenges a species’ ability to survive, allele frequencies fluctuate in a direction that modifies traits toward better adaption to an environment. In addition, when mutations occur that improve a trait and increase a carrier’s fitness, natural selection will proliferate the new allele within the gene pool. As environments change over time, populations are able to adjust to changing conditions through an evolving gene pool.
In practical terms, a changing gene pool entails the life and death struggle for survival by individual members of a population. Gene pools consist of the genes and alleles carried by individuals. A gene pool evolves because members with maladaptive traits perish more readily and produce fewer offspring, and there is a declining frequency within the gene pool of their maladaptive alleles. Eventually carriers of the maladaptive alleles may be eliminated from the population altogether and the maladaptive allele will no longer exist. Gene pools also evolve when members with the traits that make them more fit for the environment survive and reproduce more often, thus increasing the percentage of beneficial alleles within the population. Their offspring – endowed with superior traits for that environment – will also be more reproductive and further increase the frequency of these alleles.
For the most part evolution occurs through the fluctuations of allele frequency distributions. If wild turkeys are being preyed upon by mountain lions in a particular environment, then an allele that endows a turkey with greater speed, and hence an enhanced ability to elude attackers, will increase in frequency because the predators will take fewer individuals who carry the beneficial allele. The turkey population improves its fitness for the environment as the frequency distribution for the beneficial allele increases and a higher percentage of the population carries the trait of faster foot speed.
Over time, a population may become so well adapted to its environment that it no longer needs to evolve. For example, the gene pool of American alligators has changed very little over the past 65 million years, reflecting the fact that they are extremely well adapted to their environment. Modern alligators still look and behave the same way their ancestors did 65 million years ago during the time of the dinosaurs. Such a population, characterized by stable allele frequencies, is said to be in evolutionary equilibrium. Within an equilibrated population newborns who inherit average traits have the about the same, or better, chance for survival and reproduction as those who inherit extremes of a trait. Under these circumstances, the allele frequencies within the gene pool will remain about the same and natural selection will tend to punish new mutations. Most populations most of the time are in a state of near equilibrium, because most of the time the environment is stable.
Evolution happens when environments change and populations are no longer well adapted. A population’s numbers may begin to dwindle as individuals find themselves unable to overcome the new environmental challenges. This means that the population’s cumulative physical and behavioral traits are no longer a good fit for that environment. If a population’s gene pool cannot adapt quickly enough to the environment then all members will eventually die and the population will become extinct. Of the estimated 30 billion species that have ever existed on earth – including both plant and animal – 99.9% are extinct. Extinction was the fate of the dinosaurs when a giant asteroid impact spewed debris into the atmosphere that blotted out the sun for several years. With the disappearance of most plant life that served as their food supply, the large reptiles were unable to adapt quickly enough to avoid extinction. A population’s evolving gene pool is an attempt to avoid extinction amidst environmental changes.
As one might imagine, there are virtually unlimited environmental challenges that can threaten a population with extinction. A new predator entering a territory can threaten other species that lack the behavioral repertoire or physical attributes to conceal themselves, fight back, or escape. This was the fate of the Dodo, a flightless bird indigenous to Madagascar, when 19th century Europeans brought along their dogs, who hunted the species to extinction. New diseases can decimate populations who lack the immune response to protect against the virus. This is what happened to the Native American population when Europeans arrived in the 16th century and introduced diseases like smallpox, for which natives had no natural immunity. Competition for food represents another potential challenge. Sometimes two populations with similar strategies for survival living in the same area will battle each other as they compete for the same resources, and often times one will prevail and the other disappear. Some scientists speculate that Neanderthals went extinct after Homo sapiens entered the Middle East and Europe, and the two populations competed over scarce resources. These kinds of environmental challenges are what propel evolutionary change in gene pools.
The most influential environmental factor that drives evolutionary change is the climate. A Species’ gene pool evolves to be adapted to a particular range of temperature, level of precipitation, soil conditions, and kinds of vegetation. However, regions of the earth undergo climate change, sometimes very gradually and sometimes abruptly. The earth is subject to changing wind patterns, rising or falling average temperatures, periods of high precipitation, periods of drought, and so forth. These local changes often challenge the physical and behavioral capabilities of species, and may even threaten them with extinction. One solution is for members of the species to migrate to a more hospitable climate. The other solution is an evolving gene pool. Through mutations and allele fluctuations, a species’ physical and behavioral qualities can be adapted to the changing conditions and allow them to avoid extinction. In the next chapter, we will be talking about extended periods of extreme cold in the Northern hemisphere that had this kind of impact on the evolution of Europeans.
Changing allele frequencies came to the rescue in the famous case of the English peppered moth. In the early 1800s the peppered moth was well adapted to its environment, where it survived by safely perching on white barked trees, camouflaged by light gray wings that made it undetectable to predatory birds. Its strength became weakness when all the trees of the countryside turned black with soot. The factories of London and Manchester, during the period of industrialization, expelled plumes of thick smoke across the land, turning the natural world dark. Unfortunately, the moths’ light complexioned wings against the background of blackened tree bark caught the attention of predators and made them an easy target.
It so happened that a rare allele – carried by less than one in a hundred moths – occasionally produced individuals with dark black wings instead of light gray. In the new environment, the dark winged allele suddenly became more adaptive because it camouflaged the moth in the soot-covered environment. Between 1850 and 1900 the frequency distribution of the black allele in some areas went from less than 1% of the population to over 99%, and the moth avoided extinction. (2)
Often when a gene pool is trying to adapt to an environment natural selection will operate on many traits simultaneously. That is because a changing environment may require a population’s gene pool to modify many different traits in order to adapt successfully. Take the example of wolves and coyotes, two species with a common evolutionary canine ancestor. The southwestern desert coyote evolved to survive in the hot dry climate of the desert where it is capable of surviving for long periods with little food and water. Its compact 20-pound body and light fur keep it cool during the deadly heat of the summer months. The coyote is a mainly solitary creature that preys on small mammals like rabbits, squirrels, and armadillos.
The same ancestor species up north evolved into the North American wolf. It evolved the alleles for thicker fur to insulate against the snow and cold; individuals without such protection perished from exposure to the elements. It also evolved the brain wiring for social skills and hunting in large packs. Killing in groups was the only way that wolves could bring down the large grazing animals like elk and buffalo, the sole food source available during the long winter months. The northern wolf population, whose survival depended upon overpowering its prey, evolved thick bones, large muscles, and an average weight of 150 pounds. The starkly different environments shaped the gene pools of wolves and coyotes into distinct racial subgroups.
As this example illustrates, the environment is the sole factor that determines the value of a particular trait. Consider the trait of fur thickness. Where excessive insulation harmed survivability of the Southwestern coyote, natural selection penalized the alleles for thicker fur. The coyotes of the south needed a thin coat that would not trap excess heat. In the frigid plains of the north, natural selection pressure went in the opposite direction. Wolves needed thicker, more protective fur to retain body heat. Wolf pups born lacking this trait were at heightened risk of death by hypothermia before reproducing, and so their maladaptive alleles were gradually lost to the gene pool. Those with the alleles for thick fur could survive the cold, reproduce, and pass the trait on to offspring. The allele frequency for the thick fur trait increased until the alleles reached fixity so that all wolf offspring now inherit the trait.
It now becomes apparent why genetic variation is the key to a population’s ability to adapt to an environment. In the previous chapter, we saw that during sex cell formation, meiosis shuffles alleles and causes every offspring to inherit a unique assortment of traits. The variety this creates may help a species avoid extinction, because when a changing environment threatens a population’s survival, a large and diverse population may already have members who possess the physical or behavioral attributes necessary for successful adaptation. For example, when the English Pepper moth faced extinction because of its wing color, a solution was already present in the population’s gene pool. Natural selection favored the black winged trait and the alleles for gray wings quickly disappeared. In a time of evolutionary crisis, even if only a fraction of a population carries adaptive alleles it may save the population from extinction.
Gene pool diversity saved the Australian Victorian rabbit when scientists tried to exterminate it with a deadly virus. Introduced to the continent in 1859, by 1950 the breed was overrunning the land and devouring grass intended for grazing sheep. In an attempt to control the problem, scientists intentionally infected the rabbits with a virus that wiped out 99.8% of its members. Amazingly, the remaining tiny percentage of the population possessed an allele within their immune system that offered complete protection against the virus. Within a short time, the nearly extinct population returned to full strength.
In most instances, evolution acts upon a trait by shifting its average. As explained in the previous chapter, most traits are the product of many alleles, which leads the members of a population to display the trait as a bell curve. In a changing environment, the trait may come under natural selection pressure if modification of the trait better adapts individuals to the environment. For example, as members of the canine species migrated northward, the wolf population adapted by evolving average thicker fur, larger size, and higher intelligence. Individuals who carried the alleles for moving the trait averages in a more adaptive direction recycled them back into the gene pool and caused the average to shift. Individuals with unfavorable alleles that made below average for one or more of these traits, and thus less fit for the environment, reproduced less frequently, thereby further shifting the population average in a favorable direction. (3, P. 368)
A good example occurred in 15th century Portugal when farmers on the island of Santo Porto imported a group of European rabbits. Four hundred years, and many generations later, the rabbit average shrank by half. The cause was environmental conditions on the island that favored smaller size, and the disappearance over time of the alleles for larger size. One possible scenario was that predators on the island targeted the rabbits. Natural selection would have favored smaller, faster rabbits more adept at hiding or quickly escaping an attack. If so, then rabbits born with smaller than average body size would have had a distinct advantage and they would have reproduced more of their alleles for smallness. Over the years, the average rabbit size trended downward as the easily victimized larger rabbits became less frequent. Compared to their European cousins, today’s Porto Santo rabbits have the same bell curve distribution for size, but their average is about half. (4, P. 413)
This is the same kind of dual bell curve distribution for IQ that distinguishes populations of blacks and whites. Living in different evolutionary environments, Europeans and Africans evolved a great number of average trait differences, one of which was cognitive ability. Among whites, the frequency distribution of the alleles that promoted higher intelligence increased, moving the average substantially higher. We will discuss how and why this happened in the following chapter.
In some instances, evolution operates lightning fast, relatively speaking, by a process known as punctuated equilibrium. This is where a population comes under intense selection pressure, and evolution occurs in rapid spurts. When an environment is killing off large numbers of a population, the relatively few individuals who have the traits needed to survive are the ones who will seed the next generation. An allele which confers a 20% reproductive advantage – meaning that carriers contribute on average 20% more offspring to a population than non-carriers – will become fixed within a gene pool within 300 generations. In times of evolutionary duress, in order to avert extinction, traits will rapidly move in the direction that helps a species avert extinction. As we will see, rapid evolution played a role in the development of higher European IQ when they were evolving in an ice age environment.
MUTATION IS THE ENGINE OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE
Without mutations, no new species would have evolved and racial differences would never have appeared. For example, humans and chimpanzees share a common ape ancestor that lived about 6 million years ago. The very noticeable difference in appearance and behavior between humans and chimpanzees is the result of genetic mutations. Over millions of years, and across a series of intermediate species, mutations modified the gene pool of our ape ancestors and transformed it into the human gene pool. Without mutations, our ancient ape ancestors would have merely passed around the same limited set of ape alleles ad infinitum, and they never would have turned into us. Novel alleles making structural changes to the body – and giving our species things like upright posture and opposable thumbs – made humanity’s evolution possible. They also played a key role in the evolution of racial differences.
Natural selection operates on beneficial mutations in the same way as any other favorable allele. When a mutated allele improves a trait, by enhancing fitness, it will increase in frequency within a gene pool. Over many generations, as a greater percentage of the population carries the mutation, the character of a population can change noticeably. For example, we have mentioned that white skin among Europeans in part comes from a beneficial mutation that restricts melanin from entering skin cells. The trait of lighter skin tone spread rapidly among Europeans because it conferred a significant survival advantage. Melanin-deprived skin cells easily absorb sunlight, which allows them to quickly manufacture copious amounts of vitamin D. Without the alleles for lighter skin, Europeans were highly susceptible to vitamin D deficiency during the long northern winters when they bundled up in furs, stayed indoors, and had little exposure to the limited amount of winter sunlight. Symptoms included bone deformity, weakness, and a compromised immune system. With enhanced ability to generate Vitamin D, individuals who carried the mutated allele had a significant survival advantage and rapidly spread the trait, until the allele became fixed within the population.
SPECIATION
The evolutionary process that leads to new species is called speciation. It entails the transformation of a population’s gene pool so that, over time, the new population is radically different from the original population, to the point where its members are no longer capable of reproducing with members of the original population. Speciation most often occurs when some kind of barrier separates some members of a species from the main population. With the two populations unable to interbreed and no longer sharing alleles, they are in a position to travel down separate evolutionary paths. As we will see in the next chapter, this kind of scenario led to the evolution of racial groups among Homo sapiens.
There are many types of barriers that can separate two populations. Sheer distance often creates a barrier, as is the case with African and Iranian cheetahs, and the Galapagos Island finches, both mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. Climate change can also create barriers. Dryer conditions may form deserts that become largely uninhabitable, leaving populations on either side unable to interbreed and therefore capable of diverging genetically. Scenarios by which nature erects barriers to interbreeding are almost limitless, including widening rivers, the formation of mountain ranges, and deepening ravines like the Grand Canyon.
Now, if two populations of the same species – separated by a barrier and no longer exchanging alleles – are dwelling in environments that present unique natural selection pressures then they will evolve down different evolutionary paths. One environment may cause a population’s gene pool to evolve different frequency distributions for alleles that the two populations have in common. In addition, mutations may arise in one population that improve its gene pool, while the same mutations might never arise in the second population or, if they do, might prove disadvantageous and disappear. As well, because of the environment, natural selection may eliminate alleles from the gene pool of one population that were previously common to both. Each gene pool may thus contain a number of unique alleles that are not present in the other population. The dynamics of natural selection operating in unique environments can thus shift trait averages in different directions. If the environments are sufficiently dissimilar, and pose very different natural selection pressures, the two populations will eventually evince noticeably different physical and behavioral characteristics. If this process continues long enough then the two populations can evolve into different species no longer capable of interbreeding.
We have an excellent example of speciation in California. During the ice age, glaciers carved out large interconnected lakes that were home to a species of small fish called Cypridon, more popularly known as pupfish. Beginning about 10,000 years ago, global warming dried the lakes into small isolated spring-fed pools; large tracts of land separated the pools and prevented interbreeding. The pools offered very different environmental conditions in terms of predators, salt levels, temperature, and oxygen levels. After thousands of years of adaptation to local conditions, 20 different species of pupfish live in these separate small bodies of water in the Death Valley region of California and Nevada. Each species has different average size, different body structures, different behaviors, and different tolerance for water conditions in which they can survive. Each population – descended from a common ancestor – evolved a unique set of traits suited for the particular aquatic environment in which they evolved. (4, P. 412)
One common way for populations to become separated is through migration. A successful species may experience a population boom that leads to overcrowding and increased competition. In this case, some members may relocate to an area where they have better prospects. Similarly, if an environment turns inhospitable, some individuals may migrate to a less punishing area. After the exodus, if nature erects a barrier between the original population and the migrant population, they may travel down separate evolutionary paths, and the conditions for a speciation event are in place.
Migration led to significant evolutionary change in the case of the Nene geese of Hawaii. Biologists surmise that a group of North American geese, sidetracked by a storm, wound up in the Hawaiian Islands. Unlike North American geese, the Nene geese have feet that are more thickly padded and only partially webbed, as well as longer and stronger toenails for gripping. This evolutionary adaptation allows them to walk easily on lava flows that cover the islands on which they live. Although they lacked these traits when they first arrived on the islands, they evolved them through mutations that arose and modified their gene pool to change the structures of their feet. Today they are well adapted to their environment, though they are noticeably different from their North American cousins. (4, P. 412)
The evolution of human racial differences between blacks and whites is the result of a classical speciation event. Although the races did not evolve into separate species, they certainly diverged significantly in terms of physiology and behavior. In the next chapter we will examine how the different environments in which the races evolved influenced the development of racial traits. In particular, we will explore the way that the European environment pressured the white population to evolve significantly higher IQ. 
References
_______________________
1. Itan Y et al, (2009) The Origins of Lactase Persistence in Europe. PLoS Comput Biol 5(8), August 28, 2009
2. Grant, Verne, The Evolutionary Process, 1985
3. Hartwell, L. H. et al, Genetics, 4th edition, McGraw Hill, 2011
4. Solomon, E. P. et al, Biology, 6th Edition, Thompson Learning, New York, 2002
7. Evolution Of Higher Caucasian Intelligence
_______________________
This chapter presents an alternative to the theory that past and present white racism is the cause of lower black cognitive ability. This alternate theory rejects the notion that social factors are to blame. The reason that American Caucasian population has higher average intelligence is because their ancestors evolved in the colder Middle Eastern and European environments that pressured their gene pool toward higher IQ. Unlike traditional liberal explanations, which attribute the intelligence gap to manmade factors, this account is far more compelling because it matches the same evolutionary explanation for so many other known racial differences. In addition to skin color, there are hundreds of documented average trait differences between blacks and whites including hair texture, bone structure, hip size, limb length, testosterone level, tooth form, and nose contour to name just a few. No one on the left denies that evolution played a role in creating these racial differences. Yet, absurdly, they deny that evolution played any role whatsoever in the creation of racial differences in intelligence. Such a stance is untenable when one considers the evolutionary context. There is no rational reason to believe that the evolutionary forces that forged so many anatomical and physiological differences between the races left man’s most distinctive organ – the brain – entirely unaffected. Quite the contrary, as we will see, cognitive ability would have been the primary focus of evolutionary change after Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa. The harsh environmental conditions of ice age Europe and Asia made the evolution of higher intellect among whites not only possible but also inevitable.
The main evolutionary theme in the roughly 6 million year transformation of ape into man is rapidly increasing brain size. The average brain size of modern man is about 1350 milliliters. That compares to only 400 milliliters for the 6 million year old chimpanzee-like species from which we descended. Smaller ape brain size is partly explainable by smaller ape body size, but even on a brain-mass to body-weight ratio, the modern human brain is still three times larger than chimpanzees. 6 million years is astonishingly fast – at least on an evolutionary time scale – for the average brain size of a species to expand three-fold. Had the rest of the body evolved as quickly and to the same degree as our brain, the average human would stand 12 feet tall. (1, P. 449)
For natural selection to favor larger brain size to this extent, the advantages would have had to outweigh some significant evolutionary drawbacks. A large brain is an energy hog; the human brain is only 2% of body weight but accounts for 18% of caloric expenditure, thus burdening our hominid ancestors with the need to acquire more food and increasing their risk of starvation. Additionally, a larger brained fetus requires the pregnant mother to expend more energy and resources during gestation. The liability continues after birth when she must devote an extraordinary amount of attention to the helpless infant; the first 12 months after birth are essentially an extension of gestation while an infant’s brain continues rapid development. As natural selection would have tended to penalize these disadvantages, the continued expansion of the hominid brain signifies that there was a strong evolutionary benefit to enhanced cognitive ability. (1, P. 445-446)
The evolutionary payoff was the capacity to adapt to the environment using intelligence. A larger brain means more neurons and more information-processing power for more sophisticated behavior. Small-brained species such as alligators and geese respond to a specific set of environmental variables with a hard-wired fixed action pattern. Scientists studying the graylag goose have observed this instinctive behavior; when an egg rolls away from the mother’s nest, she uses her beak to carefully nudge it back with the other eggs. But if while she is guiding it back the experimenter takes the egg away, the goose will nevertheless continue the behavior of returning the egg as if it is still there, even though she is pushing air. Moreover, if the experimenter places a wooden egg, a doorknob, or even a volley ball near the nest, the goose will mistake it for one of her eggs and try to steer it back into the nest, treating it like the real thing. The small-brained goose hasn’t the cognitive ability to make intelligent distinctions and to respond to changing circumstances; when the right stimuli activates its brain circuitry it automatically performs the instinctive behavior of rescuing one of its eggs, all the way through to completion, even when the behavior is senseless. (2, P. 1113).
In stark contrast, big-brained humans overcome environmental challenges with reason and imagination. In cold weather, they need not migrate to a warmer climate that their bodies are suited for; they can remove the fur of another animal and wear it for protection from the elements. When attacked by a predator that is much stronger and faster, they can still win using technology, such as spears and other manufactured weapons. The powerful intellect of Homo sapiens requires an abundance of neurons and sophisticated neural circuitry, which gives them the ability to form a more accurate mental model of the world and formulate strategies to overcome obstacles. Only humans rely so heavily on thinking, because only they have such large brains with such complex circuitry. Modern man is by no means the strongest, the fastest, nor the most fearsome species in his environment, but he still prevails because he makes up for his physical limitations with his wit. Sapiens’ defining trait – which has enabled them to dominate the earth – is the degree to which cognitive ability, not physical prowess, has become the means of survival.
We have tangible evidence of man’s evolving brain over the past 6 million years. Anthropologists have uncovered thousands of artifacts that bear witness to the increasing behavioral sophistication and brain size of our hominid ancestors. Most of the tools they used have disintegrated, as anything made out of wood, animal hide, or other carbon-based material usually decays over such long periods. However, we do have an abundant record of the stone and – less frequently – bone tools that primitive humans used in the struggle for survival. These implements bespeak the evolution of brains increasingly capable of innovation and complexity. Chimpanzees – our closest living relative – are not capable of fashioning sophisticated tools. Scientists studying them have verified that the 400-milliliter brained animal lacks the mental capacity to be able to shape rocks into cutting tools. Even when scientists show them how, their brain does not have the ability to learn the skill. The steady improvement in human tool manufacturing testifies that our ancestors were getting smarter as their brains became larger. (1, P. 451)
The story of human evolution begins roughly 6 million years ago when a still unidentified predecessor species branched from ape. This ancient human ancestor was the first to evolve an ability to walk upright for short distances, and would have looked and behaved much like our closest living relatives the chimpanzees. They would have lacked the bone structure to walk upright comfortably and continued to dwell primarily in trees. They eluded predators by relying upon their intelligence and their ability to cooperate in watching out for threats and sounding out warning, thanks to highly evolved social skills. While they were incapable of speech, they were adept at communication using hand signals, vocalization, and facial expression. They were capable of simple tool use, such as wielding a stick to extend their reach to strike fruit from a tree, and were able to teach such skills to their offspring. Thus we see the signs of rudimentary culture. While impressive by animal standards, their intelligence was limited by their relatively small brain size.
In 1992 anthropologist Tim White unearthed a significant evolutionary link in the ascent of man called Ardipithicus ramidus. The 4.4 million year old fossil found in northern Ethiopia is remarkable for the fact that while clearly apish, it had human-like features. Only 4 feet tall, ramidus had the skeletal structure of an ape, but also an extra bone in its foot as well as a larger pelvis that gave it enough stability to walk upright, though awkwardly and with some difficulty; at the same time it remained an expert tree climber. (3, P. 53-54) Exactly what prompted this ape-like creature to evolve the ability to walk on two legs is a matter of speculation, but there are several hypotheses. 
Perhaps bipedalism offered a more efficient means of getting around in an environment where a drier climate was turning dense forests into open grasslands; maybe its walking ability freed the hands to be able to transport larger amounts of food back to its family or to carry an infant while journeying over land; or possibly upright posture facilitated the ability to grab fruit hanging from trees. (1, P. 222) Regardless, its improved skeletal structure for upright posture was an important milestone in the transition from ape to man. Ramidus had the same size brain as chimpanzees, so it did not represent a species more highly evolved for intelligence. Like chimps, members of ramidus probably used tools in a very primitive fashion, as by inserting a branch into an anthill to pull out insects to eat; nothing much more sophisticated could be expected from a species with such a small brain.
Anthropologist Donald Johanson in 1974 revolutionized the quest to understand man’s evolutionary origins when he discovered the fossil remains of the first Australopithecus. Popularly known as “Lucy”, the specimen he found represented another species intermediate between ape and man, one that would eventually evolve into the first humans. Lucy measured 3 feet 5 inches tall – about average for a female Australopithecus but much shorter than the 5-foot male average – and looked like a bipedal chimpanzee. Lucy and her colleagues are the first known species whose DNA endowed them with an anatomy designed for walking gracefully upright; they lived near open grassland three million years ago where they would look for food, but where they were also highly vulnerable to predators because of their slow speed. The bones of this particular species, formally known as Australopithecus afarensis, frequently show tooth marks and wounds that demonstrate they were targets of fast moving predators such as lions. Lucy and her kind survived because they were good at acting cooperatively – keeping watch and alerting each other to approaching danger through vocal sounds – and because they had higher intelligence. As a percentage of body weight, their brains were modestly larger than chimpanzees, which gave them the cleverness to use sticks and rocks as weapons to try to fend off predators. Although they were not hunters, neither were they strict vegetarians, and when opportunity arose they would supplement their diet with protein that they scavenged from the kill of other predators. (3, P. 58-70)
Anthropologists classify a species as human in part based upon its brain size – about 600 ml is the minimum before a species can qualify. (3, P. 105) The term human is not synonymous with our species, Homo sapiens; rather, it is a synonym for the taxonomic genus Homo (the Latin term for man) that includes any species with upright posture, relatively large brain size, and a capacity for manufacturing sophisticated tools. Humans also have opposable thumbs and shorter fingers that give them the dexterity and the necessary grip to manufacture tools. So far anthropologists have discovered 23 species of humans in the archeological record including Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, and our own species Homo sapiens, which is Latin for “knowing man”. We sapiens are the only humans still in existence, the other species having gone extinct and become knowable only from the tools they made and from skeletal finds.
A little more than 2 million years ago Australopithecines speciated into the first humans called Homo habilis. The name means ‘handy man’ in Latin, a reference to their tool making capability. 2.3 million year old habilis fossils reveal that its big toe no longer had a grasping ability for tree climbing, and its foot was specifically constructed for upright walking. Homo habilis, who lived in modern Tanzania, marks a watershed where for the first time the planet Earth hosted a species that survived in part by relying extensively upon technology. Its tool chest included hammer stones used for fashioning other tools, crude choppers for dismembering carcasses, sharp instruments for cutting meat, axe-like implements for cutting wood and breaking bone, and scrapers to remove skin from animals. To make these items, the toolmaker held a hammer stone in one hand, a rock called a core in the other, and expertly hammered off a piece of the core. They then pounded and ground the resulting rock “flake” into a sharp edge to become any of various sharpened tools like a knife or axe. The 4-foot tall members of Homo habilis were not hunters, but they did scavenge meat for a rich source of protein and use their tools for butchering. Their incredible shift to tool making was made possible by an average brain size of 612 ml or, after adjusting for body size differences, a little over half that of modern Homo sapiens. (3, PP. 98-106)
About 1.5 million years ago Homo habilis speciated into Homo erectus. This hardy species endured for well over a million years and roamed the earth as recently as 120,000 years ago before going extinct. Erectus averaged 5 foot 8 inches in height, walked with a fully human gait, and evinced a flatter face and rounded skull for a clearly human appearance. (3, P. 111) They had the distinction of being the first humans to migrate out of Africa and confront more challenging environments in Europe and Asia. As they continued to evolve, their brain size continued to expand; recent erectus specimens from a few hundred thousand years ago display brain volumes as large as 1100 ml. (3, P. 119). They exhibited sophisticated behavior that makes us think of modern humans: controlling fire, living in hunter-gatherer social units, and relying heavily upon technology. The tools they made were more sophisticated and required higher intelligence than the simpler Homo habilis flake tools. This included their multi-purpose hand-axe, which performed so well and was so essential that erectus used it for well over a million years unchanged. To manufacture the hand-axe, erectus needed the intelligence to picture the finished product in the mind’s eye, the dexterity to use a hammer stone to break a core in two, and the ingenuity to artfully shape one side into a sharp point, and the other into a rounded surface that could be held in the palm of the hand. The resulting axe functioned as both a blade and a chopper, and may possibly have served as a weapon thrown into herds to bring down a deer or an ox. (7, P. 195)

Hand axe

Homo heidelbergensis is important because it is the parent of our own species Homo sapiens. (3, P. 136) A direct descendant of Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis were the same average height as sapiens, and averaged only slightly smaller brains. (3, P. 146) They needed a big brain because, unlike previous human species, they did not obtain meat primarily by scavenging, they got it through stalking and killing prey. With a large brain and high intelligence, they were able to manufacture the weaponry and tools needed to bring down and butcher large animals such as horses and rhinoceroses. They manufactured the first known throwing spears uncovered near Hanover, Germany that date back 400,000 years. This marked a significant improvement in hunting technology because humans were now making weapons to kill prey from a distance, thus reducing the likelihood of injury from close range fighting. (3, P. 237) Some scientists speculate heidelbergensis may have been able to use a rudimentary form of language; their physiologically sapiens-like ears were anatomically capable of processing the subtle differences in sound needed to comprehend speech. Like its Homo erectus ancestors, Homo heidelbergensis evolved in Africa (about 800,000 years ago) and then expanded into Europe and Asia where they in turn eventually evolved into Neanderthals (3, P. 144). But they also continued to live in the plains of Africa, specifically in the Ethiopian highlands, where some of their number, around 200,000 years ago, evolved into our own species.
Before turning to Homo sapiens, we must describe the other descendant of Homo Heidelbergensis, our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals. Scientists believe heidelbergensis evolved into Neanderthals somewhere in Europe about 300,000 years ago (3, P. 148). While portrayed in popular culture as brutish cavemen, amazingly, Neanderthals had larger average brain size than modern Homo sapiens. In part this had to do with their larger body size, but unquestionably they were highly intelligent. Scientists speculate Neanderthal may have been able to speak, as its throat was physiologically formed to enable it to voice words, and its genome contained the same version of the Fox2p gene that enables speech among Homo sapiens. Without Fox2p, the human brain cannot develop the wiring needed to use language. (12) They were extremely rugged, immensely strong, and their battered skeletons suggest they used close-range tactics to battle their prey that resulted in frequent injury. (3, P. 156) They were expert hunters, and relied upon killing grazing animals during the winter to survive. They made highly sophisticated hunting tools, including serrated blades fastened to spears with animal sinew; these blades were designed for penetrating and embedding in the flesh of prey to cause maximum blood loss. For a time Neanderthals coexisted with Homo sapiens in Europe and the Middle East and, as we will discuss below, they played a role in the evolution of Europeans. Neanderthals remains have never been found in Africa. Scientists believe they were the first humans to use fire for cooking food and for hardening the tips of wooden spears. In addition, they made necklaces and buried their dead in ritualistic fashion, indicating that they had a capacity for religious thought. (3, P. 197)
The birth date of Homo sapiens is estimated to be about 200,000 years ago. Anthropologists established this date by carbon dating the remains of Homo sapiens skeletons in Ethiopia, the oldest samples of our species ever found. (3, P. 170) The date has corroboration by genetic testing. Geneticist Rebecca Cann and her colleagues collected DNA samples from various populations across the globe and compared their differences. Finding agreement with the fossil data, they concluded that it has taken between 100,000 and 200,000 years for the genetic differences observed among populations to evolve since Homo sapiens’ origin. (14) The distinguishing features of modern humans are a flatter face with well-defined chin, a flat eyebrow ridgeline, thinner bones of a species increasingly relying on tools instead of brute strength, and a high, dome-shaped skull to house a large brain. With the possible exception of Neanderthals, sapiens are also unique among human species in possessing the ability to use language. Most importantly, we rely extensively upon technology and sophisticated behavior as a means of adapting to the environment.
About 80,000 years ago is when our species began evolving into sub-races. Anthropologists hypothesize that this is approximately when a small group of sapiens split off from the main population and migrated out of Africa into the Middle East, followed by long-term population expansion over the rest of the planet. To leave Africa, most likely they walked across modern day Egypt into the Middle East, or else floated on logs across the Red Sea – which would have been substantially narrower at that time than it is today – and migrated north along the lush coast of Arabia northward to the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Scientists believe that the sapiens who migrated out of Africa encountered novel environments, with unique natural selection pressures, that caused them to evolve into the Caucasian and Asian racial subgroups. This theory of how the races evolved, called the Out of Africa model, is supported by genetic studies. In 2007, scientists from Stanford University looked at 650,000 genetic locations from the DNA of 1,000 individuals from 51 different regions of the globe. They found that genetic diversity is greatest in Africa and decreases the further from Africa they looked, which supports the theory that everyone alive today traces their roots back to the African homeland. (5)
The separation between Africans and non-Africans also began the evolution of the 30-point racial IQ gap. Before the separation, all Homo sapiens were part of the same population and shared the same alleles for intelligence. After a splinter group exited Africa, there were now distinct populations of Homo sapiens who were no longer sharing genetic material. For tens of thousands of years, the vast distance between Europe and Africa constituted a barrier that prevented blacks and whites from interbreeding, setting the stage for separate evolution in very different environments. The sapiens who migrated out of Africa were not physically and cognitively prepared to survive in the new environment, since evolution in Africa had not endowed them with the features necessary to survive in arctic conditions. In Africa, Homo sapiens lived in a hospitable environment where the warm conditions made clothing unnecessary, the gentle climate made simple structures built of straw and mud sufficient to protect from the elements, and an abundance of vegetation made it relatively easy to acquire food. African sapiens had evolved the physical and behavioral traits that made them fit for surviving in this kind of environment. For European sapiens to be able to survive in the new conditions they encountered, they would need to undergo a period of evolutionary change.
Some sapiens who left Africa settled in warmer regions that were climactically similar to Africa and, consequently, they did not evolve significantly higher IQ. The groups who migrated to southern portions of Asia, Australia, and the Indonesian Islands were able to continue to practice a hunter-gatherer lifestyle not so different from the continent they had left. Because of the similarly warm climactic conditions, they did not need to evolve higher cognitive ability in order to cope. Today their ancestors have lower average IQ than Homo sapiens populations in the colder regions of Europe and Northern Asia. (6)
The sapiens who migrated north encountered conditions that severely challenged their ability to survive. 80 thousand years ago, when humans left Africa, both Europe and Asia were in the midst of an ice age. Even the summers were often so cold that northern locations like modern Britain and Germany did not warm up enough to melt the ice, and glaciers formed. At various times, ice sheets half a mile thick covered large portions of northern Europe, preventing human habitation, and forcing sapiens to migrate to glacier-free areas sometimes as far south as southern Spain and France. The fossil evidence shows that Homo sapiens moved into Europe, at the latest, sometime around 46,000 years ago. These first Europeans were more rugged than modern humans, and had dark skin, thicker bones, and bigger teeth. Over time, they evolved the more delicate features seen today. A first wave entered from the Middle East across Turkey into southern Europe along the Mediterranean; a second wave came across the Siberian plains into northern Europe. Fossil evidence in Spain and Britain proves that by 40,000 years ago sapiens had set foot upon most of the European continent. (3, P. 31)
But the temperature during this time fluctuated dramatically, so that amidst the long term cold trend there were periods of warmth – lasting up to hundreds of years – that thawed the ice. During these times, when the melting glaciers receded, European and Asian hunter-gatherer clans had more land available to roam and a more abundant food supply. These were boom times leading to rapid population expansion and, as we will see, helped increase the average IQ among Europeans. When the long-term cold trend reasserted itself, the glaciers reclaimed the land and these people again had to migrate southward.
Europeans adapted to the colder environment by continuing the theme in hominid evolution toward larger brain size and higher intelligence. Living in a world that entailed certain death without the aid of artificial protection against the elements, Europeans had to conquer the environment with their mind or perish. Certainly they also adapted by evolving other parts of their anatomy. They evolved lighter skin to absorb sunlight and more easily manufacture vitamin D. They evolved shorter limbs, a broader torso to more easily retain body heat, and many other features that distinguish the races. But the real key to their survival was intelligence and creativity. Since they lacked sufficient cognitive ability to cope with the new environment when they first left Africa, they needed to evolve higher intelligence to the tune of about 30 IQ points. Because the new environment presented extreme challenges to their survival, natural selection demanded rapid adaptation, and for Europeans and Asians this meant enhanced cognitive performance. According to neurobiologist William Calvin, while evolution changes the rest of the body slowly, it can modify the brain much faster by modifying the alleles for brain development. (7, P. 41)
The highest imperative would have been to avoid freezing to death. With no natural protection against bitterly cold temperatures, Asians and Europeans had to find a way to manufacture protection from heat loss. Unlike Africa, where insulating the body would have merely contributed to overheating, Europe and Asia necessitated layers of animal fur to preserve life during the winter. Archeological digs in modern day Czechoslovakia have turned up 28,000 year-old sewing needles for stitching clothing from animal hides. No doubt humans were making clothing prior to that, but this is the earliest evidence we have of garment manufacture. They also would have had to erect formidable shelters to withstand strong winds and heavy snowfalls during the harsh winters in those areas where there were no habitable caves. Certainly they constructed these of wood but the evidence has disintegrated. However, sturdy huts that sapiens constructed out of woolly mammoth bones have been found in the Ukraine – in an area where wood was not available – dating to about 15,000 years ago. In the central European region of Moravia, archeologists have uncovered the remnants of large structures with fireplace hearths and cooking ovens. It can be inferred that by 20,000 years after first entering Europe, Homo sapiens felt at home in their arctic environment. (3, P. 229-234)
Equally compelling would have been the need to acquire food during the long winter months when there was no vegetation to gather. Under these circumstances, the only way Europeans could survive, and obtain salt and protein, was by hunting herd animals. (7, P. 192) Undoubtedly they would have stored food but it would have been difficult to store enough for an entire winter. This of course placed a great premium on hunting skills, as failure to take game meant the difference between survival and starvation. Planning these hunts, coordinating them, inventing better tools and traps for more effective killing, all would have required intelligence and foresight to accomplish. The advantage would have heavily favored individuals with the cognitive ability to manufacture sophisticated and deadly hunting technologies, particularly weapons that minimized risks by allowing hunters to inflict death from a distance.
There is an abundance of evidence that Europeans used their ingenuity to create such technology. Archeologists in Dordogne, France have found 18,000-year-old deadly sharp spears with intricately crafted serrated tips designed for penetrating and embedding into the flesh of prey. 28,000-year-old European skeletons have been recovered with scarring at the juncture of the arm bone and shoulder blade; it is evidence that these hunters were repeatedly using overhand throwing motions to project lightweight spears during hunts. In various regions of Europe people used flint to make knives with handles for extended reach. And in Poland archeologists have found a 23,000 year old boomerang-type weapon made from the ivory tusk of a woolly mammoth; a skilled hand could throw it 50 meters to kill birds and cripple the legs of reindeer. The intelligence to fashion these kinds of technologies is testimony to how far the European hunter had evolved since leaving Africa with simple stone axes. (3, PP. 235-240)
Another contributing factor to higher white intelligence may have involved the need for enhanced social skills. Scientists strongly believe that rising hominid intelligence and expanding brain size was the result of increasing dependence on social skills for survival. Interdependence and cooperation would have been especially important to humans in the wintery realm of Europe. Europeans would have had to engage in hunts that required a great deal of cooperative effort to carry out successfully. They would have needed to mount a common defense against rival clans, including Neanderthals. They also would have needed the intelligence to negotiate the complex web of alliances that exist within tight-knit communities with more complex forms of social organization. According to biologist Alexander Harcourt of Cambridge University, “Alliances are far more complex social interactions than two-animal contests. The information processing abilities required for success are far greater.” Individuals with greater verbal and social skills would have had a survival and reproductive advantage. Socially skillful individuals more adept at recognizing other peoples’ motives, building alliances, avoiding enemies – as well as practicing deception – would have had greater opportunities for reproducing and spreading their higher IQ alleles. (13, PP. 55-79). As enhanced social skills require higher intelligence and more brain capacity to be able to process complex calculations, natural selection for social skills would have led to higher IQ.
Scientists have uncovered artifacts along the Danube River in Swabia, Germany that provide a window into the world of early Europeans around 40,000 years ago. European hunter-gatherers established base camps in the valley along the river but hunted as far as several miles away on the surrounding plateau. They would have needed not only cooperation but division of labor to bring down the reindeer, bison, and mammoth that were dietary staples, and then haul the prize several miles back home. (3, P. 232) Carrying out these hunts would have required excellent communication skills, superior planning ability, and cooperation in accomplishing a common objective. Clashes with other clans – both Homo sapiens as well as the Neanderthals who occupied Europe at the same time – would similarly have necessitated the skills to communicate and to coordinate defensive actions.
The evolution of the European brain for higher intelligence would have occurred in the same manner as any other kind of speciation event. The great distance between Europe and Africa separated the two populations and made it impossible for them to interbreed and exchange alleles. The European population, under intense selection pressure in a more challenging environment, lacked the physical features needed for survival in the frigid North, and the extreme climactic conditions they confronted gave them insufficient time to evolve them. Facing extinction, the only thing that could save them was ingenuity, imagination and good judgment. The European environment would have heavily favored the alleles that promoted brains designed for higher IQ. Smarter individuals would have been more likely to survive the harsh winters and produce more offspring. Those with lower IQ would have been more at risk of succumbing to the elements and failing to perpetuate their alleles. When mutations for better cognitive ability arose, they would have conferred a significant advantage and would have proliferated rapidly within the gene pool. As the alleles favorable to higher intelligence spread within the European population and more individuals carried them, the average IQ would have risen steadily.
The alleles for higher intelligence would have spread among Europeans the same way that the alleles for white skin did and for the same reasons: without them an individual’s chance for survival was significantly worse. Individuals with a brain better built for intelligence had greater ability to devise tools, manufacture weapons, plan hunts, develop survival strategies and make wise decisions that led to survival during the harsh winters. On the other hand, individuals without the wit and imagination to solve the challenges of surviving in such conditions would have perished more frequently and failed to pass on their low IQ alleles.
The climatic fluctuations that occurred during ice age Europe would have encouraged rapid evolution toward higher intelligence. As discussed in the last chapter, biologists call brief spurts of evolutionary progress punctuated equilibrium. The temporary warm periods, lasting up to centuries at a time, would have increased the amount of land available to sustain life and spawned population booms. Larger populations meant more chances of mutations appearing within the gene pool that favored higher intelligence, which would have produced within the European population a greater number of smarter individuals. The follow-up return to harsh winter conditions and plummeting temperatures would have acted as evolutionary bottlenecks characterized by increased death rates. During the harshest winters, individuals without the wit to survive the extreme conditions would have tended to perish more readily and transmit their low IQ alleles less frequently. High IQ individuals would have been more likely to overcome the survival challenges that they faced and would have had more opportunities to reproduce higher IQ offspring in the next generation. The population that emerged at the start of the next warming would have had higher intelligence for surviving in a cold environment. A new warming period also meant another population boom, more mutations, and new alleles for higher IQ. Over tens of thousands of years of natural selection, these population cycles would have advanced the European IQ average. (7)
There is another, more radical, means by which European intelligence could have risen so dramatically. Based upon highly plausible evidence, University of Utah anthropologists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending believe that alleles from our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals could have played an important role in the 30-point rise in European IQ. For a brief period, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens occupied Europe and the Middle East at the same time; these two species also shared a common ancestor as recently as 400,000 years ago called Homo heidelbergensis and were perfectly capable of interbreeding. Scientists know with certainty that Caucasians and Neanderthal produced offspring together because when scientists compared the DNA of Neanderthal skeletons with the genes of modern Europeans, they found up to 4% of Neanderthal DNA present in the white gene pool. When they performed the same comparison with the DNA of sub-Saharan Africans, they found no trace of Neanderthal DNA; not a surprising finding considering that Neanderthals evolved in Europe and Asia and never lived in Africa. (4, P. 162) (8)
The probability that Neanderthal alleles contributed to higher white IQ is supported by historical evidence. Before the arrival of Homo sapiens, Neanderthals had been living in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years and had already evolved the genes that adapted them to that environment. Like Homo sapiens, Neanderthals were thinkers who relied upon their intelligence to survive in the harsh European environment and had very large brains. (3, P. 148) Any Neanderthal alleles injected into the Sapiens gene pool that better adapted Europeans to an ice age environment would have received heavy natural selection pressure, just as heavily as if they were advantageous mutations. Neanderthal alleles that coded for higher intelligence would have quickly spread throughout the European gene pool and improved its average IQ. The idea that Neanderthals contributed alleles for higher IQ to whites fits in well with archeological evidence. Beginning around 40,000 years ago, Europeans show a sudden and dramatic increase in symbolic thinking and behavioral sophistication. It was as if their brains had abruptly taken some great leap forward, as could have happened with a sudden influx of cognitively beneficial Neanderthal alleles into their gene pool. We will be discussing the European Cultural Revolution, as anthropologists refer to it, in more detail below. (9, PP. 25-64)
We have compelling evidence that Neanderthals donated at least one specific allele that enhanced the IQ of Europeans. Recall from chapter 3 that University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn found that a version of the Microcephalin gene called “Allele D” is prevalent among Europeans and Asians, but absent among Africans. Microcephalin is a regulatory protein that helps to control brain size development in the womb. Individuals who inherit certain mutations of the allele suffer from microcephaly, a disorder characterized by an abnormally small brain. Several scientists from the University of Chicago, including Lahn, determined that allele D in modern humans has so many changes at various locations along its DNA sequence, that it is highly unlikely to have occurred because of random mutation. They conclude that the most plausible explanation is that Europeans inherited the allele from Neanderthals. Their analysis found that the gene entered the European gene pool around 40,000 years ago, about the same time that sapiens and Neanderthals coexisted in Europe and the Middle East, and about the same time as the Cultural Revolution. While political correctness has forced Lahn to abandon his scientific study of Microcephalin, his findings support the theory that Neanderthal alleles may have contributed to higher white intelligence. (10)
Rising cognitive ability is a sure sign that Europeans were evolving improved brain structures for IQ. All of the brain structures that differentiate individuals for intellectual ability would have come under natural selection pressure during the time that Europeans and Asians were evolving higher intelligence in the new environment. In chapter 4 we discussed the neurological characteristics that offer improved cognitive performance, including larger Brodman regions, more robust interconnectivity and more gray and white matter volume. Incremental improvements to these structures led to greater ability to manipulate information, reason, communicate and engage in innovative thought – cognitive traits for which white and Asian populations display a greater aptitude. Improved cognitive ability offered enhanced capability for planning hunts, designing better tools, communicating, cooperating, developing long-term strategies, innovating technologies, and effectively organizing the activities of the social unit.
The evolution of the European gene pool for improved intellectual performance is powerfully demonstrated by a sudden outburst of modern behavior beginning about 40,000 years ago. Anthropologists refer to this phenomenon as the “great leap forward” or Cultural Revolution because it manifests human creativity on a scale not previously seen. (9, P.31) According to Cochran and Harpending, the cultural innovation during this period between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago “is qualitatively different than anything that came before.” (9, P. 30) While this revolution in cognitive achievement shows up in spades in the archeological record of Europe, we find nothing comparable in the archeological record of sub-Saharan Africa.
It indicates that a radical change had occurred in the mind of European sapiens, and we have ample reason to believe that it was a manifestation of improved brain structures and evolving neural circuitry. According to anthropologist Christopher Henshilwood , “Biological evolution selected for genes that promoted a capacity for symbolism thus the foundations for symbolic culture must be grounded in biology.” (11, P. 39) According to Cochran and Harpending, “Genetic changes allowed important human developments in 40,000 BC that hadn’t been possible in 100,000 BC.” (9, P. 31) The new alleles for enhanced brain structures elevated European cognitive function and produced a new ‘higher order consciousness’; it permitted higher levels of symbolic thought, raised the ability to construct complex mental models of the world and of a social self, and improved sapiens’ capacity to create higher culture. (11, P. 143) This new mental prowess would eventually lead to the creation of civilization.
The Cultural Revolution in Europe included a blossoming of innovation in the realm of art and religion. According to Cambridge University archeologist Colin Renfrew, “The remarkable representations of animals and of humans, which for convenience we call ‘art’, become so abundant that we are obliged to see them as reflections of a new awareness of what it is to be human, and what it is like to be aware as humans of our place in a wider world.” (11, P.4) In Chauvet, France, prehistoric artists created cave paintings in 30,000 BC that captured the flowing movements of bison and horses with a sophisticated eye for detail. In Austria and throughout the rest of Europe the inhabitants were carving Venus figurines in a symbolic gesture to fertility that replicated a common European-wide cultural theme. In Swabia, Germany archeologists discovered a flute carved out of a bird’s bone dating 40,000 years ago; our prehistoric ancestors were enjoying music just as we do today. All over Europe, these kinds of artistic and religious creations become ubiquitous. These innovations bespeak a culture increasingly ritualistic and religious rather than simply acquisitive and survival oriented. (3, P. 224; 11, P. 30)
It is also around this time that Europeans began demonstrating a remarkable ingenuity for creating new technologies and social organization. According to Cochran and Henry Harpending, the frequency of technological innovation in Europe during this period increases by as much as a factor of 100. (9, P. 30) They included bows and arrows, traps for catching fish, new types of housing, and the construction of various types of watercraft. Culture became more localized as groups living just a few miles apart manufactured tools and weaponry with a distinctive style that is readily identifiable by modern archeologists. Moreover, these people were not just isolated tribes who regarded outsiders as enemies who needed to be avoided, they saw themselves as part of a broader social network. Archeological evidence shows they were routinely engaging in trade with groups hundreds of miles away, and obtaining tools and ornaments made out of materials not available locally.
Fully modern behavior is evident during a period called the Mesolithic between the period 14,000 BC and 5,000 BC. The ice age was ending and the glaciers that had periodically covered much of Europe were disappearing for good. During this time, pre-civilizational Europe developed the outlines of modern culture that would ultimately lead to the advent of agricultural based societies. Based upon their behavior, we can no longer regard Mesolithic Europeans as primitives who lived a hand to mouth struggle for existence always on the verge of catastrophe. These people – as demonstrated by their culture – had modern brains and were engaging in modern behavior albeit at a less technologically advanced stage of development than we enjoy today.
European cultures that existed during this period were as diverse as the many different environments that they inhabited. Where people lived near water they crafted various types of vessels depending upon their needs, from long distance river rafts designed for transporting freight, to fishing boats intended to be easily up-righted after capsizing. They constructed dams, fishing nets, and traps to capture fish and other aquatic life; they also manufactured harpoons, serrated points, and spears made out of antler and bone to kill seals, waterfowl, and salmon. Inland they hunted wild pig, birds, varieties of deer, horses and elk using a wide array of sophisticated tools tailor-made for specific tasks: throwing darts made of bone to kill birds, bow and arrow for bringing down prey at a distance, and innumerable varieties of traps for catching fur-bearing animals such as beaver and fox. They manufactured smaller, sharper, and wieldier blades that required highly refined artisanship. Stone tools were displaced by finely honed implements made of bone and wood including antler axes, arrow shafts, axe handles, tar torches for night light, needles for sewing, deadly sharp bone points for stabbing, and hoes made of antler. Aside from an impressive arsenal of tools, they also made pottery containers for carrying water and other liquids as well as for storing food that could be preserved using sun or wind drying techniques. (15, PP. 23-32)
Archeological excavation of Mesolithic sites reveals that these people planned and constructed the communities in which they lived. A common pattern of village design consisted of a central location, surrounded by satellite locations that villagers used for specific events. During certain times of the year, hunting parties could trek out to specially designed camps where they processed seasonal kills. Along the coast it might be slaughtering seals or catching fish during the spring migration, while inland the hunters used tree stands offering an elevated view of the terrain for preying upon big game such as deer or elk. Other locations served as markets where crowds would gather for bartering furs, jewelry and other goods. Archeologists have also identified sites that served as recreational centers where religious ceremonies or other social activities occurred. (15, PP. 32-35, 119)
By this time their material existence and comfort level showed marked improvement. Along the coast, in areas where a year round food supply made it possible, some groups were able to establish permanent year-round settlements. Inland, hunter-gatherers were more apt to have to follow the food supply after they had exhausted the local resources. Their dwellings began to resemble modern structures instead of bare-bones shelters. They erected multi-roomed homes made out of logs – some built upon stilts – with ridged roofs, overhanging eaves, bark floors, closets, and sheds added on for storage. In colder climates, they were capable of building homes with subterranean foundations as we do today. Houses on lakes and rivers included docks to which they could tie their boats. For in-home warmth, they had stone-lined and boxed-in hearths upon which to keep a fire as a source of heat and cooking during the winter. (15, P. 33)
Along with more creative technologies came more complex social interactions. Mesolithic Europeans engaged in long distance exchange of goods by boat using an extensive river system; this provided them the opportunity to acquire exotic items not found in the local area such as amber, copper, flint, greenstone and even manufactured goods like pottery. According to archeologists, toward the end of the Mesolithic trade became “efficient, enduring, and regular”, suggesting the establishment of customary trade routes, markets at specific locations, and merchants who made their living by facilitating trade. As cultural sophistication increased, symbolic behavior became an everyday part of life, just as it is for us today. Loved ones buried their family members with objects of symbolic worth: carvings of elk or bear depending on social status within the clan, knives for hunters, and a head mask for the village shaman. The wealthier the deceased, the more valuable the items placed in their grave. Kinsmen used graveyards as a place to respectfully inter the dead as well as to lay claim upon the land based upon ancestral right. The inhabitants of a location also marked their territory with elaborate carvings etched into rock. Toolmakers inscribed images and symbols into the handles of knives and hand-axes that signified the tribe or culture to which the owner belonged. Europeans also participated in religious practices involving a shaman – the stone-age equivalent of a priest or preacher. Dressed in horns and mask, they would have been an imposing presence during ceremonies where they performed rituals, induced clan-members into a hypnotic state, and acted as an intermediary between this and the spiritual world. (9, PP. 34-49)
These Mesolithic peoples were also taking the first transitional steps toward becoming farmers. By 10,000 BC some middle easterners were already engaging in agriculture for a living, and knowledge of it would undoubtedly have spread into Europe over the course of a few thousand years. Archeologists have uncovered evidence of Mesolithic European cultures that possessed tools for digging and extracting plants from the ground, as well as grinding and pounding equipment for processing the plants into edible grains. Even before adopting full-fledged agriculture, some European peoples were using fire for clearing fields and forests as a means of artificially enhancing conditions for the growth of plant life. Additional evidence reveals that some groups were restricting the movements of animals, such as pigs, and relying upon them as a staple food source; in some instances, they even transported livestock to other locations to start herds. (9, P. 31)
By the end of the Mesolithic era – approximately 5,000 BC – by all appearances Europeans were on the cusp of full-fledged civilization. Its people were using their minds to innovate new technologies to improve their environment and enhance their material well-being; in this respect they were behaving much like modern humans, albeit without our technological advantages. Where they had a very specific goal, such as catching certain kinds of fish, slaughtering seals, or trapping specific types of game, they were manufacturing specific tools and technologies to achieve it. They had a fluid, rapidly evolving culture. They made extensive use of symbolism to broadcast meaning and signify the importance of their place within the social order. They constructed permanent homes, to which they returned after acquiring food in outlying areas, and they established meeting places where groups could gather to conduct business, celebrate, or share spiritual experiences. Clearly, these people were well adapted to their environment and adequately equipped to survive in the colder realms. It is not hard to see ourselves in their behavior and it is reasonable to conclude that their brains had evolved to modern levels. It is also reasonable to believe that by the end of the European Mesolithic the 30-point intelligence gap between blacks and whites was in place.
The reason Africans have lower average IQ than whites is because their environment did not pressure their gene pool to evolve higher cognitive ability. At the time Europeans were evolving higher intelligence in the frigid North, Africans continued to dwell in the same environment in which Homo sapiens originated, and for which they had already evolved adequate intelligence. Unlike the sapiens who migrated to Europe and Northern Asia, they did not need substantial evolution to adapt to them to their environment. With no compelling environmental challenges pressuring them toward higher cognitive ability, their average population IQ remained about the same as when sapiens migrated out of Africa 80,000 years earlier.
The climactic challenges found in ice age Europe that taxed man’s cognitive abilities were not present in the stable African environment. Warm year round, the African climate did not threaten inhabitants with death by exposure. A straw or mud hut and minimal clothing were sufficient to insure survival. They could easily acquire food by digging for roots, picking fruits and vegetables, and trapping or hunting small game. Even in winter, abundant vegetation was available for gathering with minimal effort. Like Europeans, Africans also hunted game for a source of protein but the plentitude of edible vegetation meant that hunting skills were not a matter of life or death. They did not need the higher cognitive ability to create sophisticated tools and weapons, durable structures to survive harsh winters, and warm clothing to protect from the cold. They also had less need to develop higher social skills and language ability for the close cooperative effort required in the more challenging environments of Europe and Asia. In the comparatively hospitable African environment, a lower average IQ was not an impediment to survival.
Certainly mutations for higher intelligence would have arisen in Africa just as they did in Europe and Asia. However, when a mutation creates a novel allele that confers no survival advantage, natural selection will not favor it and will eventually eliminate it from the gene pool. Because alleles for higher IQ did not enhance fitness in Africa, those who inherited a mutant allele for better intelligence would be no more likely to reproduce than the average African, and so these alleles did not proliferate. Moreover, there is no evidence that blacks intermixed with Neanderthals the way that whites did. The 4% Neanderthal DNA that is found in the white gene pool is absent among black Africans, and whatever beneficial alleles for intelligence Neanderthals might have transferred to Europeans were not introduced to the African gene pool.
The gene pool of Europeans that emerged at the dawn of civilization was very different from that of their ancestors who had migrated out of Africa some 80,000 years before. Natural selection shaped their brains for higher intelligence because the punishing ice age European environment demanded it. For those who remained in Africa, the relatively hospitable environment presented no comparable challenges that would cause a push in the direction of higher intelligence. While Caucasians evolved higher IQ amidst conditions that severely challenged their ability to survive, African cognitive ability did not keep pace in an environment for which they were already well adapted. It is an evolutionary legacy that shows up in every aspect of our modern mixed-race society and, as we will see, has never been more relevant than it is today in our technologically advanced and cognitively challenging world. The next chapter will examine the legacy of the separate evolutionary histories of the two races and its impact on their relative capacity for achievement.
References
_______________________
1. Lewin, Roger, Principles of Human Evolution, Blackwell Science, Malden, MA, 1998
2. Solomon, Biology, 6th Ed., Solomon
3. Palmer, Douglas, Origins: Human Evolution Revealed, Octopus Publishing, New York, 2010
4. Hartwell, Leland, H. et al., Genetics: From Genes To Genomes, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill, New York, 2011
5. Roach, John, Massive Genetic Study Supports “Out of Africa” Theory, Feb 21, 2008
6) Lynn, R. and Vanhanen, T. (2002). IQ and the wealth of nations. Westport, CT: Praeger
7) Calvin, William, Ascent of Mind, iUniverse, 2001
8) Schmidt, Randolph E., Neanderthal DNA found in Human DNA: Human Ancestors Mated With Extinct Species, Researchers Say, 5/6/10, Science Magazine
9) Cochran, G. and Harpending, H., The 10,000 Year Explosion, Basic Books, New York, 2009
10) Evans, P. D. et al., Evidence that the adaptive allele of the brain size gene microcephalin introgressed into Homo sapiens from an archaic Homo lineage, PNAS, 11/26/2006
11) Tattersall, Ian, Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness, Mariner Books, 1999
12) Krause J et al. (November 2007). "The derived FOXP2 variant of modern humans was shared with Neandertals". Curr. Biol. 17 (21): 1908–12
13) Dunbar, R., Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, Harvard University Press, 1996
14) Cann RL, Stoneking M, Wilson AC (1987). Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325: 31–36
15) Bailey, Geoff et al, Mesolithic Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2008
8. History Of Black Achievement
_______________________
In this chapter we set out to disprove the ‘myth’ of lower black IQ by conducting a review of the historical record. We begin with the hypothesis that blacks do have the same genetic profile for intelligence as whites. After all, that is what liberal elites insist to be true. They say that at conception all racial groups inherit the same genes for intelligence, but blacks grow up in a deprived home and social environment that suppresses their IQs. So, ignoring the scientific evidence discussed in the previous chapters, we will assume that blacks do in fact have the same predisposition as whites for a 100 average IQ. If this is truly the case then it must be observable in the historical record. At various times throughout history some black populations must have realized their inherent potential to build an advanced culture comparable to whites, and the historical record will reflect these accomplishments. But what we would surely not see is blacks, superficially differing in skin color but otherwise genetically identical in intelligence to whites, never achieving in prehistoric, historic, or modern times the technological innovation, wealth accumulation, and social organization the we see among Europeans and their descendants. Therefore, if we cannot find historical examples of highly developed black cultures that attest to a high level of cognitive ability then we must regard this as further evidence of a lower-IQ gene pool.
Obviously, we can only use historical black accomplishments as a means for assessing black IQ if cultural achievements are a reflection of group intellect. In other words, comparing cultural accomplishments among racial groups to assess their relative IQ is valid only if a population’s ability to create technologies and to maintain sophisticated social structures is a reflection of the average IQ of its members. Psychologists Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen have demonstrated empirically that this is the case. After analyzing the standardized IQ test scores from over a hundred countries around the world and comparing them with gross national economic output, they found a direct correlation between a nation’s average IQ and the amount of wealth it produces. The higher the average IQ of a population, the more wealth it tends to produce. (1)
That is because populations with a high average IQ produce many more individuals who can meaningfully contribute to society’s economic output. Populations with a high average IQ have a higher percentage of individuals able to learn skills, reason, manage society’s affairs and innovate new technologies. A lower IQ population has fewer individuals with these qualities, and so it has less intellectual capital to contribute to its productive output. High IQ populations like those in Japan, Europe, and South Korea – each with an average of 100 or better – are examples of societies able to generate substantial wealth. High IQ populations also generate many more individuals capable of extraordinary accomplishments in music, art, literature, science, and other endeavors that are the product of highly intelligent minds. It is because population IQ and cultural accomplishment are highly correlated, that we can review the accomplishments of black and white populations throughout history, and compare their relative levels of intelligence and, hence, capacities for achievement.
To begin with, we do not have evidence for higher black IQ in prehistoric times. There was never an African cultural ‘Great Leap Forward’ comparable to the European cultural explosion (described in the previous chapter) that occurred beginning about 40,000 years ago. Nor do we see in Africa during the Mesolithic era the kind of cultural innovation and technological creativity that was happening in Europe during that period. Furthermore, humanity’s transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to an agricultural based existence happened first among Caucasian groups in the Middle East about 9000 BC and did not spread to sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) until sometime around 2000 BC. Therefore, the pre-historical pattern shows Caucasians to be cultural innovators while black Africans did not exhibit the same propensity. While lower black achievement during prehistoric times does not serve as proof of lower black intelligence, it certainly does not lend support to the theory of equal racial intelligence.
The first cities were also the product of white minds, not of African blacks. Anthropologists have identified Jericho – located in the West Bank – as the first known permanent agricultural settlement and date it to about 11,000 years ago. As we saw in the last chapter, prior to settlements like Jericho humans were mostly migratory, traveling in groups of up to 100 people, foraging for plants and hunting or scavenging meat in a particular area; when local resources were exhausted or the weather turned unfavorable they moved on. Hunter-gatherers lived a precarious existence of feast or famine that was not conducive to large population growth. That all changed when cultural innovators began growing grains and raising livestock. With a reliable food source and the relative safety of permanent year-round settlements, these early villagers experienced a dramatic surge in population.
The first ‘modern’ civilization was again the invention of Caucasians around 3500 BC when a people called the Sumerians revolutionized the way humans lived. Dwelling along the banks of the fertile Tigris and Euphrates rivers in modern Iraq – or what is known as Mesopotamia – they systematically grew wheat and corn by relying upon two of their major innovations: plows and sophisticated gravity-flow irrigation. They stored grain surpluses in large warehouses to insure a year-round food supply and avoid want even in years when the harvest was poor. They also invented a system of mathematics based upon the number 60, which is why today we divide a circle into 360 degrees and have 60 minutes in an hour. They were the first to construct buildings out of sun baked clay bricks and invented the wheel to support load-bearing devices that could do the work of many men. With an abundant food supply, Sumerian cities were the first in human history to exceed 100,000.
The Sumerians brought social complexity to new heights. For the first time in history human beings began to accumulate significant wealth and needed to protect it by maintaining social order. They formed urban governments to safeguard private property from internal theft and external invasion, and to manage the common interests of the people. Sumerian political elites oversaw food production and distribution, as well as the maintenance of the vital irrigation system, which required regular upkeep. A priest class interpreted and carried out the wishes of the gods, and oversaw the erection of large monuments to awe the population and establish obedience to their authority. Courts convened to settle disputes as an alternative to bloodshed. With a surplus supply of food, produced by the efforts of both freemen and slaves, some members of society, spared from having to farm the land, could dedicate their efforts to specialty tasks like making clothes and forging metal. The Sumerians also exchanged goods through long distance trade with peoples as far away as India, and facilitated economic activity with the invention of a money supply made up of metal coins. (2, P. 7).
Most notably, the Sumerians invented writing as we know it today. Previously, the dissemination of information was difficult because written communication was limited to conveying meaning with pictures of tangible things like a cow or a horse. The Sumerians were the first to use markings that represented abstract concepts with an accepted conventional meaning; now, the spoken word could be recorded on a clay tablet, and others could read and understand the symbols, provided they had already learned the accepted meaning beforehand. The importance of writing to the Sumerians cannot be overstated. Archeologists have recovered tens of thousands of small Sumerian hand-sized clay tablets that were indispensable to the functioning of Sumerian society. Private parties commemorated contracts, government officials published laws and edicts, scribes kept accounts of business transactions, courts issued rulings, and people kept in touch over long distances. Writing also preserved knowledge – such as Sumerian prayers – for the benefit of future generations. (2, PP. 14, 20)
Other civilizations in other parts of the world began to take root. Around the second millennium BC the Chinese erected agricultural civilizations along the Yangtze and Yellow rivers by taming flood waters using complex levee systems. By 1500 BC they had created the same complex writing system still in use today that takes students years of study to master. We know Chinese authors were writing books in the 8th century BC because some of them sit in Chinese museums today. And in India, along the Indus River, officials planned and constructed cities with populations of 100,000; the main roads were exactly 34 feet in width, had sewage canals for waste removal, and had ample room to accommodate 2 large carts passing each other in opposite directions. (2, P. 53) As early as 2000 BC these cities were conducting long distance trade with Mesopotamia and China. Subsequent civilizations that followed in the footsteps of Sumer included the Babylonians, Hittites, and Assyrians, and later the European Greeks and Romans. (2, P. 24)
There is a controversy surrounding another Sumerian-influenced civilization, that of ancient Egypt. Beginning around 3100 BC, about 800 miles south of Mesopotamia, Egyptians farmed the banks of the Nile River in relative isolation with desert to the east and west, difficult terrain to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea to the north. Inhabitants worshipped their kings – the pharaohs – as gods and evolved a complex religion with at least 3,000 deities and a belief in life after death; the latter explains the construction of the Great Pyramids to act as eternal tombs for the pharaohs. An educated class of priests and public officials helped the pharaohs to administer an efficiently run state. (2, P. 28)
Life was good for even the Egyptian commoners who enjoyed relative peace and stability, plentiful food, a hospitable climate, and an effective government. Egyptian painters, sculptors, and jewelers left a rich artistic heritage that to this day is highly prized by collectors. Their artwork shows a lively culture that partook abundantly of music, dancing, and festivals. Its people mastered stonework, created a calendar system, and possessed knowledge of mathematics. Egypt began its decline around 1100 BC culminating in successive conquests by numerous powers including the Greeks and Romans. However, we still know a great deal about their history because Egyptians created a system of writing that used an “alphabet” of 604 symbols that can be read and interpreted by modern historians today. (2, P. 36)
The controversy is created by Afrocentrist ‘historians’ who claim that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Afrocentrism is defined as “a reading of world history that emphasizes the importance of African people – taken as a single group and often equated with black people – in culture, philosophy, and history”. (3) The self-professed goal of Afrocentrists is not to discover historical truths but rather to make black people feel good about their heritage. Its inventor, a Jamaican named Marcus Garvey (1887-1940), alleged that modern European historians collude to conceal the critical role that blacks have played in the history of western civilization. If in fact the ancient Egyptians were black this would indeed be evidence that the ancestors of American blacks possessed the capacity for creating advanced culture. For two thousand years Egypt was among the most advanced civilizations in the world, and no one can deny their impressive history of intellectual achievement.
However, the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the fanciful claim that the ancient Egyptians were black. The best persons to inform us about the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians are not Afrocentrists but eyewitnesses who were there. Through their artwork and writing, Egyptians clearly convey that they distinguished themselves from black Africans, and that they considered themselves separate. The ancient Egyptians were a Mediterranean people who were members of the Caucasoid race and looked like modern Egyptians of today. Certainly they had frequent contact with black Africans who dwelled to the south, but in their paintings the Egyptians depicted themselves as light-brown skinned with Caucasian features. As will be discussed below, in their writings the Egyptians also talk about blacks as outsiders who were not a part of Egyptian society. The testimony of Egyptians is corroborated by an abundance of writings by Roman and Greek writers. In the book Black Athena Revisited, Professor Frank Snowden of Howard University supplies us with numerous descriptions of Egyptians by Greek and Roman writers who interacted with them. They described Egyptians as mildly brown skinned, in contrast with the Nubians who dwelled south of Egypt whom they depicted as dark skinned. (4, PP. 112-128). The historical evidence gives us no reason to believe that the people who ran Egyptian society were black.
In addition, using modern technology, scientists from multiple disciplines have dispelled the Afrocentric claim of a black Egypt. In three separate studies, University of Michigan anthropologist C L Brace and a team of biologists examined the skulls of ancient Egyptian skeletons and concluded their cranial features were non-Negroid and more closely resembled that of Asians and Europeans. (5) Likewise, Professor J. D. Irish examined the teeth of ancient Egyptian skeletons to ascertain their race. Dental professionals can easily distinguish between the tooth of a black person and a white person. Based upon the dentition of Egyptian skeletons, professor Irish concluded they were not sub-Saharan African. (6) Finally, using modern genetic techniques, a number of scientists have analyzed Egyptian remains and consistently found them to be non sub-Saharan African. The genes of ancient Egyptians resemble that of groups from North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe. (7-11) The ancient Egyptians, then, were not black and their accomplishments cannot be used as evidence that the ancestors of black Americans have at some time in the past equaled the cultural accomplishments of whites.
This evidence also shatters the pseudoscientific Afrocentrist claim that the ancient Greeks – the founders of European culture – stole their philosophy, their science, and their religion from blacks. Afrocentrists argue that Greek intellects like Aristotle and Plato took credit for ideas that they learned from black Egyptians. In a shocking abandonment of academic standards, and in the interest of political correctness, this ridiculousness is still being taught even at elite institutions like Princeton and Stanford. To be sure, if it could be proven that blacks were somehow responsible for even a part of the prodigious output of Greek culture then it would indisputably establish a history of high intellectual black achievement.
But the idea that blacks invented western culture cannot stand up to scholarly scrutiny. In Wellesley Professor Mary Lefkowitz’s book Black Athena Revisited, two dozen scholars from multiple disciplines debunk this modern myth and expose it as, in part, sham science loosely based upon some facts and some historical inaccuracies, and the rest sheer fiction. (4) The book points out that Egyptians were not black, that the Greeks were the originators of most of their ideas (along with normal exchange of ideas with nearby Mesopotamian cultures), that Aristotle could not have stolen his ideas from the Egyptian library at Alexandria since he died before the library was constructed, and that the Greek philosopher Sophocles could not have been black – as Afrocentrists claim – else he could not have been an Athenian citizen. The book also convincingly argues that blacks never invaded Greece (or there would be some historical record of it) and that there is no ongoing conspiracy in modern academia to conceal the role of blacks in the evolution of civilization. The claims of Afrocentrists should be viewed as morale boosters for blacks, not as historical truth.
In fact, no black African cultures achieved a civilized mode of existence prior to contact with Caucasians. In instances where civilization did make inroads into SSA before European colonization of Africa in the 19th century, it is difficult to describe its impact, with any degree of accuracy, because no black cultures ever developed a system of writing. Until the early 20th century, when Europeans brought literacy to SSA, the only written description of black Africans came from Egyptian, Arab, European and other non-Negroid people who had contact with them. Moreover, most of the limited number of written descriptions we have of SSA prior to European contact in the 15th century are less credible second or third hand accounts. Unfortunately, with a dearth of information creating an historical vacuum, Afrocentrists are free to conjecture a pre-European golden age of black culture. But most of their exaggerated claims are based upon so-called oral traditions of African people and treating them as if they were fact. Unlike genuine history, which is predicated upon written accounts of verifiable historical figures and events, oral tradition consists of cultural myths hundreds or even thousands of years old. It cannot be interpreted as actual history, as the story can change with each telling, and there is a high likelihood the storytellers are engaging in myth-making and entertainment. (44, PP. 73-74)
However, based upon the information we do have, we know that up until the 20th century the vast majority of sub-Saharan Africans lived a simple tribal existence. During the time that civilization was arising in Sumer and other parts of the ancient world the people of sub-Saharan Africa were living in simple straw hut villages presided over by a chief. Tribal members spoke the same language and had kinship ties with nearby villages. Their way of life for the most part followed a similar pattern: hoe farming, mud and straw hut construction, ancestor worship, and strong affiliation to the tribe. Yet in many regions of West Africa groups remained in the stone-age and maintained a hunter-gatherer lifestyle well into the first millennium AD. (12, V. 2, PP. 331-338).
Sub-Saharan Africa’s first steps toward civilization came as a result of contact with non-Negroid peoples. Civilization is a state of human development roughly characterized by food acquisition primarily through agriculture or animal husbandry, complex social relations, technological sophistication, and a high level of accumulated knowledge. It was Caucasoid peoples from the Mediterranean and Arabia that introduced iron technology, agriculture, and other rudimentary elements of civilization to black Africa. In an effort to examine the claim that blacks have the same potential for achievement as whites, we will look at the response of black Africans to the encroachment of civilization into SSA.
A key to understanding black African history is familiarity with the geography of Africa and the importance of the immense Sahara desert. The northern coast of Africa features terrain like that of Italy and Greece, and in ancient times hosted non-negro peoples such as the Egyptians, Libyans and Berbers. They had minimal contact with SSA and experienced heavy cultural influence from their Mediterranean trading partners like the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Immediately to their South the Sahara desert constituted a giant barrier between them and the black tribes of sub-Saharan Africa. The endless sands of the Sahara stretch a thousand miles north to south, and three thousand miles east to west from Africa’s Atlantic shores to the Red Sea in the east. Across this vast desert expanse the only significant natural relief is the winding Nile River that flows from the Mediterranean coast of Egypt southward to the Congo jungle in the heart of Africa.
It is along the Nile that civilization first makes inroads into SSA. The Nile River connected ancient Egypt to black Africa but the route was exceedingly difficult. Severe impediments called cataracts – stretches of river characterized by rocks, dangerous waterfalls, and shallow water – inhibited boat travel and created a natural barrier between Egypt and the black Africans to their south. (12, V. 1, P. 899) Egypt proper runs from the Mediterranean where the Nile begins to the first cataract 500 miles to the south. The ancient Egyptians called the regions below the first Cataract Nubia, the land of the blacks. The Nile continues through the desert another thousand miles over 5 more cataracts before the desert ends and the African jungle begins.
Egyptian writing and art depicts their interactions with Nubians dating back to at least the 3rd millennium BC. Egypt’s interest in Nubia was obtaining natural resources, especially the gold which they could use to transact business with other Middle Eastern powers such as the Assyrians. One Egyptian scribe, writing about 2275 BC, recounts how a group of Egyptians came back from a trip down the Nile with 300 donkeys, ivory, incense and other exotic goods they had obtained from the lands of Nubia. (14, P. 25). Around 2000 BC the Egyptians began to fortify areas south of the first Nile cataract to help secure their gold mining operations. (13, P. 56)
Eventually they extended their control to the 4th cataract where they constructed the colonial cities of Kerma and Napata in what is today Sudan. They served as trading centers where indigenous blacks came to sell ivory, cattle, slaves, and gold. (13, P. 59) The Egyptians provided no description of local black culture, or what impact Egyptian civilization had on it. Archeologists have found clay pots conforming to indigenous African craftsmanship buried in local grave sites, proof that even after Egyptians moved into the area native African culture endured. (12, V2, P. 210)
Egypt’s early relationship to the indigenous Africans they encountered, as depicted in wall scenes on tombs and hieroglyphic texts, was one of subjugation. For many centuries the Egyptian pharaohs bureaucratically controlled their Nubian provinces by appointing governors – aided by the support of royal troops – to administer the territory and insure order. (12, V2, P. 210) They required Nubian chiefs to submit to their authority and to govern members of their own tribes in accordance with Egyptian wishes. Egyptian officials taxed the Nubians and acquired food for their urban centers from the efforts of Nubian farmers. (12, V1, P. 910) Egyptian paintings and sculptures also depict Nubians taken as prisoners, enslaved, and serving in the Egyptian army. (13, P. 61)
Over time the substantially more numerous blacks began to merge into local Egyptian society, and Egypt’s emphasis turned to incorporating a black elite into the provincial administration. The Egyptians transported the sons of black chiefs to Egypt, where they served in the royal administration before being returned to the provinces to continue their service as part of the local government. (12, V1, 913) While provincial Egyptians built temples and converted a small number of black elites into their religion and culture, the majority of the black population residing outside of the urban centers clung to their traditional tribal way of life.
Beginning around 1100 BC Pharoanic Egypt entered a period of decline that led to the first SSA black kingdom. Wracked by internecine conflict, Egypt fractured into smaller political units and lost control over peripheral areas such as Syria and Nubia. Freed from Egyptian domination, the largely black population of Nubia assumed leadership over the former Egyptian province and became what is today known as Kush. Around 750 BC Kushites marched northward and conquered the once-great Egyptian civilization; for a hundred years black pharaohs sat on the Egyptian throne. About 650 BC the black King Tanwetamani marched an Egyptian army eastward against the Assyrian empire only to be defeated in battle and forced to flee south back to Kush. After an Egyptian invasion of Kush in 593 BC, the Kushites migrated even further south, past the 5th Nile Cataract, where they established their new permanent capitol at Meroe. (12, V2, P. 217)
We can evaluate the impact of the first encroachment of civilization into SSA by examining Kush at the height of its power around 300 BC. The source of Kush’s wealth was three-fold. First, it controlled the flow of gold, slaves, ivory and other exotic goods coming down the Nile from the heart of Africa and destined for sale to Egyptians, Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples. (2, P. 230) Second, the Kushites also controlled the trade of spices, clothing, and other exotic goods between India and Egypt; Indian merchants landed at ports on the Red Sea where their merchandise could be transported over land controlled by Kush to the Nile, and then by boat to Egypt. (2, P. 176). Finally, starting around the 4th century BC, the people of Kush began manufacturing highly prized iron products that they sold to Egypt and later to the Greeks and Romans. They had learned iron making from the Assyrians – a technology invented by the Hittites located in modern day Turkey around 1500 BC – and obtained the raw material from iron ore deposits found in abundance near Meroe.
The history of Kush certainly does not provide us with the evidence of higher black intelligence. Archeological evidence and Egyptian writings reveal that the Kushites attempted to preserve Egyptian culture right up until the time that Kush ceased to exist. Despite its remoteness from Egypt and declining cultural contacts after the move to Meroe, its art and architecture remained unmistakably Egyptian. (12, V2, P. 212). Kushites continued to bury their royalty in Egyptian style pyramids – though on a much smaller scale – and later, after Rome had conquered Egypt about 23 BC, they constructed some buildings in the fashion of the Greeks and Romans. (15, P. 38) They continued to worship the same Egyptian gods and import manufactured goods from Egypt to bury with their dead. (13, P. 61) Noteworthy for our purposes is that over the thousand years of Kush’s existence the salient features of its culture included no notable innovation.
The decline of Kush is also not what we would expect of a population endowed with high intelligence. Inscriptions on the tombs of Meroe royalty from as early as the 4th century BC reveal an extremely poor grasp of Egyptian hieroglyphics and testify that Kushites were unable to maintain a good working knowledge of Egyptian writing. (12, V. 2, P. 255) Mastery of Egyptian writing took years of training and was restricted to an elite class of scribes. We can infer – given the importance of writing to maintaining civilization – that Kushites lost the ability to write despite efforts to preserve that knowledge. Curiously, around the 2nd century BC, a new written script appears in Meroe, mainly at burial sites, that archeologists call Meroitic script. It consists of 23 simplified symbols borrowed from Egyptian, and though the letters are clearly Egyptian, archeologists have never been able to interpret the symbols, nor verify that they actually convey meaning. Kushites continued to use Egyptian hieroglyphics sporadically even after Meroitic script arose, raising the question of why there were two separate writing systems. When a rival trading power called Axum rose to power along the Red Sea, Kush lost its source of wealth and went into decline beginning about 100 AD. In 350 AD an Axumite army defeated the enfeebled kingdom and at that point Kush disappears from the historical record.
A pertinent question is the racial composition of the Kushite population, especially that of its elites. With virtually no contemporaneous description of Kush, the question cannot be definitively answered, but it can be safely assumed that it was not entirely black. The evidence from architectural remains and burial sites clearly shows that there were two cultures in Meroe existing side by side, one heavily Egyptian in character, the other indigenous African. Some graves were filled with beads, pottery, amulets, and other objects stylistically Egyptian, along with bodies buried according to Egyptian custom. In contrast, the graves of non-Egyptian burials included pottery characteristic of indigenous African culture, the same type unearthed at archeological digs that pre-date Egyptian colonization. Archeologist P. L. Shinnie of the University of Calgary hypothesizes one possible explanation: an elite group of blacks continued the Egyptian tradition, while the majority of the population living in non-urban areas retained their traditional tribal ways. (12, V2, P. 234)
But we can also surmise the possibility that Kushites of Egyptian descent or racially-mixed Nubians were part of the elite that helped maintain the Egyptian tradition. During several hundred years of Egyptian hegemony, many Egyptian priests, traders, and officials settled in Kush. (13, P. 59) Some of them would have intermixed with the majority black population and had descendants who undoubtedly were a part of Kush society. Some Egyptian paintings depict Kushites as a mixed-race people of both lighter texture skin side by side with dark skinned Nubians. (15, P. 29) As the people of Meroe left scant historical record of themselves, the explanation for Meroe’s dual culture, and its racial makeup, is open to conjecture.
The story of Kush is the same in many respects for another black kingdom called Axum. Like Kush, Axum’s power derived from a strategic location that made it ideal as an African trading center. Its port – called Adulis – was located about 1200 miles southeast of Cairo on the coast of the Red Sea in modern day Ethiopia. It was described in the 1st century Greek text The Periplus of the Erythrean Sea – one of the few contemporary written descriptions of Axum from the ancient world – as the most important trading port on the southwestern Red Sea. The port brought together Egyptian, Greek, and Roman merchants who could exchange goods with Chinese and Indian businessmen from the east. Axum also controlled overland trade routes used for the traffic of goods coming up from the heart of Africa.
The kingdom’s capitol city, also called Axum, was located about 8 days walking distance inland from Adulis in the Ethiopian highlands. Its location was wisely chosen, as it was surrounded by good farmland, had an ample water supply, and was easily defended from attack. Axum’s trading activities made it wealthy, which allowed its kings to expand their territory both around Axum, and across the Red Sea in southern Arabia. As mentioned, in 350 AD it decisively ended competition from its main rival by marching an army 100 miles to the east and sacking the remnants of a weakened Kush, an event commemorated by the reigning Axumite King Ezana with an inscription on his tomb. (12, V2, P. 260-264)
Axum rose to prominence about the first century AD but, as with Kush, its cultural roots lay outside of SSA. Axum’s history began around 500 BC when non-negro Arabians crossed the short span of Red Sea that separates east Africa from Arabia, and founded settlements in the Ethiopian highlands. At the time Arab peoples were far more advanced than the African tribes who inhabited the area; the Arabs used the plow, knew how to practice terraced farming, and had literacy with a script that was based upon ancient Sumerian writing. Archeologists have unearthed some of these early settlements to find houses, temples, religious monuments, and tombs that are Arabic in character. The evidence indicates that the Arabs migrated peacefully into this area and formed a melting pot culture with indigenous Africans that was largely dominated by Arab influences. (12, v. 2, P. 262; 13, P. 62)
Axum’s rise to power was heavily influenced by an expanding Greek business empire. Greek traders for centuries had conducted commerce in Egypt, and even had their own trading center called Naukratis in the Egyptian Nile River delta. In the 1st century AD, as part of their growing business dealings, Greek traders established a close relationship with Axum. Greek traders settled in Adulis, Greek became the port’s language of business, Greek businessmen erected Greek monuments, and Axum transacted business using Greek coinage as a medium of exchange, owing to its advantage over bartering. (13, P. 62-63) Roman, Arab, and Jewish merchants used the port of Adulis to carry on trade. Clearly Axum was highly integrated with the Mediterranean civilization, so much so that when the Roman emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome in 532 AD, Axum converted to Christianity shortly thereafter. (2, P. 176) Axum rapidly declined in the 7th century with rise of Islamic culture and the successful efforts by Arabs to dominate the Red Sea trade. After Arabs destroyed the port of Adulis, and deprived it of its source of wealth, Axum fell into oblivion like Kush before it.
We cannot detect, given the extensive influence of Greek and Arab culture on Axum, any cultural contribution specifically attributable to black ingenuity. Certainly blacks would have numerically been the predominant race, but how much their creativity and intelligence played a role in the affairs and culture of Axum simply cannot be known. As was the case with Kush, the indigenous black people had no writing and therefore left no description of their way of life. What little written record of Axum we have comes from writings in Greek and Arabic. The prominent cultural features of Axum originated from outside Africa, including its language, script, architecture, and religions. Axum is also famous for its stelae – tall thin religious monuments made of stone – but this style originated in Arabia where similar structures dot the landscape. Again, despite the accolades Afrocentrists heap on Axum, its culture is not native African and its history does not furnish proof that black intelligence is comparable to that of whites.
Unlike Kush and Axum, the rest of SSA remained almost entirely isolated from the Mediterranean world during the rise of civilization from the time of the ancient Sumerians until after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century A.D. (2, P. 172). By about the 5th century BC some western SSA tribes were making iron, herding cattle, and engaging in agriculture (13, P. 180; 12, V. 2, 332) but nowhere had they reached a state of development that would satisfy a historian’s definition of civilization. Northern Africans rarely crossed the barrier of the Sahara desert prior to 1000 BC and with only slightly greater frequency afterwards when the horse came into use. Not until camels were introduced, sometime between the 3rd and 6th century AD, did Berber traders from North Africa make regular contact with the natives of West Africa. (13, P. 180) This is the area from which most of the slaves brought to America originated.
Not until around the 10th century A.D. did West Africa develop anything resembling civilization. Islamic historian Ibn Hawqal, writing in 961 A.D., and attempting to describe all the world’s known civilizations, explained his omission of West Africa as follows: “I have not described the countries of the blacks in the West, nor those of the Beja and other peoples of those latitudes because the characteristics of organized states, such as religious, cultural, and legal institutions and stabilized governments, are utterly lacking among them.” (16, P.1) It was interaction with peoples of North Africa that first prompted some instances of blacks in West Africa to develop a way of life beyond simple tribalism.
Most of the initial exposure of Western Africa to civilization came from the Berber people. They were a Caucasian group that dwelled on the Northern coast of Africa and engaged in commerce with Mediterranean cities like Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome. They controlled an empire from the northwestern Mediterranean coast all the way to the southern edge of the Sahara where black Africans lived. By the end of the 7th century, like all of North Africa, the Berbers had converted to Islam and adopted Islamic culture. They crossed the desert, conducted slave raids against African villages on the southern fringes of the Sahara, and sold them in markets around the Mediterranean.
The formation of Ghana, the first black African kingdom in West Africa, was a response to Berber incursions from the north. Beginning around 700 AD, black tribes targeted by the Berbers formed a loose knit alliance to defend themselves against the better-armed intruders. One of the tribes, the Ghana, became dominant and its king extended his authority over other neighboring tribes. (12, V2, P. 339). The kingdom was actually located in the western part of modern Mali, not the modern country of Ghana as its name would suggest. Over a thousand miles from Egypt, the area of West Africa felt very little influence from the cultures that inhabited the Nile. By about 1000 AD the kingdom of Ghana had acquired sufficient wealth to extend its authority over a sizable expanse of West Africa. Ghana never became a state, in the sense that it enforced centralized rule; the Ghanese king forced chiefdoms to acknowledge his authority and pay tribute, but permitted them to rule over their people according to their own custom. (12, V2, P. 667).
The source of Ghana’s wealth was the lands 200 miles to its south along the Senegal River where natives mined prodigious quantities of gold. Ghana did not control the gold mines, it controlled the land in between the Muslim traders from the Mediterranean and the black tribes of the south who extracted the gold. The natives who minded the gold carried it to the markets in Ghana. The Muslims – which included both Berbers and Arabs from North Africa – loaded their camels with pearls, clothing, and especially salt, which was greatly in demand by black Africans, and transported it across the Sahara to pay for the gold they took away. The king of Ghana maintained strict control over his territory, enabling him to tax the flow of goods in both directions and accumulate wealth. In addition, the Ghanese king added to his fortune by conducting slave raids on villages to the south of his kingdom and selling the captives to the Muslim merchants. (12, V2, P. 670) Ghana’s success was in part due to knowing how to make iron weapons, an advantage that led to easy conquest of tribes who tried to oppose it with wooden or stone weapons. (13, P. 67)
Our knowledge of Ghana primarily comes from the Islamicized Berbers and Arabs who conducted commerce in the area. Historically, the first written mention of Ghana comes from educated Muslims, writing in the mid 8th century AD, who offered little detail beyond that Ghana was known for its gold. Later, Arab historian Al Bakri, writing in 1071 AD, gave a famous description of the kingdom, depicting the capital city as consisting of two towns, one of urban Muslims, the other a village several miles away where the black king lived. (12, V2, P. 668) The Muslim town – the larger of the two – was where commerce took place, and included mosques and extensive stone-built dwellings. Six miles away, the black king of Ghana lived in a straw hut village; when Muslims entered his royal house they were not required, as were his black subjects, to fall to their knees.
As to the king’s administration Al Bakri relates, “The king’s interpreters, the official in charge of his treasury, and the majority of his ministers were Muslims.” The Muslims co-opted a small black elite, taught them how to write, set them up in commerce, and converted them to the religion of Islam. (2, P. 177) Yet the king and the majority of indigenous blacks living in the countryside clung to their tribal customs and animistic religion. (12, V2, P. 668). Ghana’s demise began when its source of wealth – the gold mines along the Senegal – dried up leaving it weak and vulnerable. Muslim Berbers, seized by a religious fervor, overran Ghana during an 11th century jihad against the largely animistic Africans, forcing them to convert and bringing the kingdom’s influence to an end.
The story of another West African kingdom called Mali – located roughly in the same area as the modern country – is very similar to that if its neighbor Ghana. After Ghana’s demise, Mali rose to some prominence about 1250 AD predicated upon control over rich veins of gold along the Niger River. (2, P. 177) As happened in Ghana, the gold attracted the interest of Muslim Berbers and a trading relationship ensued; soon Muslim traders were exporting large quantities of gold and slaves from Mali to the Mediterranean world. The Mali king reaped large profits by taxing the Muslim shipments trafficked across his territory.
Mali’s illiteracy creates an historical vacuum that makes it hard to know facts about the kingdom. Arab scholars provide the only written account prior to European arrival, and these rare descriptions are mostly unreliable 2nd or 3rd hand accounts. (12, V3, P. 376) Moreover, the few Arab historians who traveled to West Africa and witnessed Mali firsthand were almost exclusively interested in describing the Islamic commercial centers and omitted descriptions of black populations in the surrounding countryside with whom they had little contact. Much of what passes for Mali history today is based upon so-called oral traditions – essentially tribal myths of modern Africans – of highly questionable value. Archeologists are not even able to locate the archeological remains of the putative capital of Mali called Niani. Unlike with European history, there is no way to verify information about Mali from third party sources since the kingdom was isolated from the literate parts of the Mediterranean. (17, PP. 1-8)
The kingdom of Mali, reaching its zenith in the 14th century, was not a state in the European sense. The basis of authority in West African society was the local chief who presided over a village. The Mali chief was a ‘chief among chiefs’ who imposed his will on smaller chiefdoms and forced them to pay gold, supply him with soldiers, or supply laborers for his fields. Local chiefs retained sovereignty over their own villages and avoided being attacked as long as they met the Mali king’s demands for tribute. There was no centralized Malian bureaucracy, no defined territorial boundaries, and no sophisticated political structure. Wherever possible, the Mali king made extortionate demands upon a village under pain of military action. Mali’s neighbors vied for control of the same territory and much of Mali’s history involved conflict with competing tribes trying to exert control over the same lands. The kingdom steadily lost control over its areas of influence and by the mid-15th century had contracted back to a small area along the Niger River.
What we don’t see over the course of Mali’s history is any sign that blacks in Western Africa incorporated the influence of Islamic culture and used it as a springboard for further progress. Mali’s history as a kingdom spanned almost 200 years during which we see no significant technological or social progress, except for Islamic Berber and Arab contributions. The basis of Mali’s wealth, the trade routes between Western Africa and the Mediterranean world, were controlled by Arab and Berber merchants. (12, V3, P. 2) Mali soldiers used weapons, rode mounted horses, and wore armor they had adopted from Islamic culture. A center of learning in Timbuktu, dedicated to studying the Koran and religious thought, was established by Muslims from the North and staffed mainly by Arab scholars. Mali’s commercial centers, where trade took place, were predominately Muslim in character. Black populations in the surrounding areas remained tribal and animistic, and only slowly adopted the practices brought by Islamic culture. Mali’s history, to the extent known, does not supply evidence of a cognitively talented black population that readily adopted advanced Muslim cultural practices in order to improve their lives.
The last instance of civilization in Africa prior to European arrival we will mention is the Swahili states. These were port cities founded along Africa’s east coast between the 8th and 12th centuries AD. They included the seeds of modern East African cities such as Mogadishu, Somalia; Mombassa, Kenya; and Zanzibar, Tanzania. The pioneers who founded them were Semitic people from the Middle East fleeing overpopulation or religious persecution after the rise of Islam. Archeological diggings in these places reveals structures built in Arabian style, including mosques built of stone, some of which still stand today. There is no archeological evidence of settlements by native Africans along the east coast prior to this period, leading to the conclusion that Arabic and Persian traders were the ones who built these cities. (12, V3, PP. 189-212).
We have good descriptions of the Swahili ports from the 15th and 16th AD, by Arab and Portuguese writers, who portray them as vibrant and wealthy trading centers. Landowners and merchants of mixed-race descent, who governed the towns, generally got along peacefully with the black natives of the interior, though they clearly distinguished themselves from the indigenes. According to African historian of the University of London Roland Olivier, “These were not African societies which had been penetrated by Islam, but foreign settlements around which African elements had gathered.” (12, V.3, P. 3) Intermixing between black Africans and Arabs produced a mixed-race culture, including a merged language called Swahili comprised of African Bantu and Arabic. Culturally the coastal states were faithfully Muslim, as opposed to indigenous interior populations who remained tribal, spoke their own language and practiced animism. Portuguese writers also report that the Swahili cities included a significant percentage of slaves.
The Swahili cities did not build kingdoms, introduce cultural innovation, or become host to Muslim scholarly communities. What primarily interested them was transacting business and acquiring luxuries by serving as middlemen for the bustling Indian Ocean trade. Chinese and Indian traders brought glassware, ceramics, porcelains, silk, cotton fabrics, and glass beads. African natives from the jungle brought gold, ivory, and other goods to the coastal cities in return for the manufactured goods the Muslims had to offer. However, these towns had little cultural impact on the African tribes of the interior who maintained their traditional way of life. (12, V3, PP. 187-219)
The coming of Europeans in the 15th century ushered in a new era for Africa. The technologically advanced European states like Spain and England had much from which Africa could learn. At first, the opportunities for cultural transmission were limited because the Europeans in fact had little interaction with the continent. Lacking immunity from African diseases, Europeans could not survive the African interior, forcing them to confine their activities to the coast. The Portuguese in the 15th century were the first Europeans to set up trading operations in Africa, but the other European powers soon began their own commercial activities.
They traded right on the beach or in lightly staffed outposts that they constructed along the coast; the Africans brought slaves, gold and ivory; the Europeans offered clothing, jewelry, firearms, and other manufactured items in exchange. The parties traded freely, as the Europeans were small in number and not in a position to compel the Africans, and often the tribal chiefs gained the upper hand by forcing the Europeans to compete with each other and bid up prices. The primary business activity was slave trading, mainly between 1650 and 1870, when sugar and cotton plantations in the new world created an insatiable demand for labor. Beyond that, until they began exploring the continent after the middle of the 19th century, Europeans regarded the African interior as a mystery.
We want to try to summarize the state of African culture before the Europeans colonized the continent and imposed their authority. For 400 years prior to colonization black Africans sold millions of slaves to Europeans and reaped significant profits; in some instances they used their gains to build kingdoms. These included, for example, the West African kingdoms of Dahomey and Oyo, as well as several powerful city-states along the west coast heavily involved in the slave trade. The guns they purchased from the Europeans gave them the firepower they needed to subjugate neighboring villages and force them to pay tribute. Because of their income, and their contact with advanced Islamic and European civilizations, they had a genuine opportunity to accumulate wealth and develop sophisticated social structures. They never, however, managed to translate these opportunities into any kind of complex and technologically advanced culture that would be suggestive of higher cognitive ability.
The reason black Africans never accumulated any significant wealth is because they always remained technologically impoverished. Any work that had to be done – whether tilling the fields, carrying water, or transporting freight – was accomplished with muscle power. At the time of colonization in 1870, in almost no part of SSA were animals employed for transporting freight or tilling fields. There is no evidence that Africans ever possessed the ingenuity to invent technologies to substantively ease their work burden. Moreover, even at the approach of the 20th century they practiced highly inefficient agriculture. When Africans wanted to farm they simply burned a field and planted, but this form of agriculture quickly depletes the soil and results in low crop yields.
Their technological backwardness proved very costly in terms of lost opportunity. While European states garnered immense wealth from international trade, Africans were at the mercy of the traders who came to Africa to buy African goods. No blacks knew how to build boats with sails, so they were unable to transport goods to foreign markets and maximize profit by selling to the highest bidder. Even after 400 years of contact with European mariners on the West Coast they never crafted anything more sophisticated than the simple canoe. By all appearances they had minimal ability to incorporate new technologies learned from other cultures. Black Africans never used the wheel, the harness, the plow, writing, sophisticated metallurgy, gunpowder and many other technologies to which they had been exposed by more advanced cultures but never adopted.
On the verge of colonization nowhere on the continent did there exist an example of an advanced black African culture. In areas where kingdoms formed, like Ghana or Mali, their territory expanded or contracted frequently with no fixed boundaries. Lacking roads, a king was unable to communicate rapidly over long distances or quickly move troops. He might not realize a subjugated territory had withdrawn its allegiance for many months and could only quell such rebellion with great difficulty, if at all. The chief of a tribe claimed legitimacy for authority because of fitness to lead, not on authority from God or consent of the governed. Lacking prisons, African authorities routinely tortured, maimed, and killed criminals. Life for ordinary Africans was treacherous, marked by frequent eruption of tribal warfare, travel conditions made unsafe by bandits, and sudden theft of what meager possessions they had. A few African societies, such as those in West Africa, manufactured jewelry, clothing and other goods, but this kind of craftsmanship was rare. Black Africans had an insatiable demand for manufactured items like glassware, clothing, jewelry, guns, and other fabricated products when traders from North Africa, Asia, and Europe came to barter.
But even these sorts of rudimentary kingdoms were the rare exception. The vast majority of sub-Saharan Africans lived in isolated villages and practiced the same tribal customs their ancestors had for thousands of years in what anthropologists call stateless societies. A village chief represented the sole source of higher authority. Villagers engaged in celebrations, warred with rival tribes, and taught their young tribal customs, straw hut construction, ancestor worship, hunting, and agriculture. Their religion was primitive animism, a belief that spirits inhabited the woods and streams and that one should take care not to offend them. Even well into the 20th century many tribes remained isolated and largely untouched by civilization and lived without the advantages of modern technology. (18, P. 293)
There is no strict definition of what constitutes civilization, but an Oxford University biologist named John R. Baker enumerated some of its salient features. Approaching the 20th century, on the brink of African colonization, most white populations lived in societies that qualified as civilized. By contrast, no black society – not even the kingdoms we have discussed – satisfied the definition. There is no evidence that any black peoples ever manufactured coins to replace bartering. The coinage used in Axum was of Greek origin. Despite its obvious utility, no black people ever used the wheel for transport. No black culture that we know of ever instilled social order using a system of laws and justice; the customary tribal method was for disputes to be settled by the whim of a tribal chief or through resort to self help. As far as we know black African religions never included ethical standards for behavior; the crux of animism was to appease the tempestuous spirits who were believed to inhabit the natural world. No black cultures ever used a system of abstract numbers, created or used a calendar system, or developed writing. We also have no indication that any black peoples ever valued knowledge and understanding as ends in themselves. And there were never any black societies where the majority of the population lived in towns connected by roads. These civilizational milestones would not be seen in sub-Saharan Africa until after European colonization. (19)
At the time Europeans began colonizing Africa in 1870, we can say that black African culture had not demonstrated a capacity for achievement comparable to whites. In many ways, even the most developed areas of Africa south of the Sahara were less advanced than Caucasian societies that had flourished many millennia earlier. 5,000 years prior to African colonization, ancient Sumer had created the first cities with populations of 100,000 people. 2500 years before colonization, Greek city-states were flirting with scientific inquiry, laying down the foundation of modern philosophy, exchanging goods by ship throughout the Mediterranean, and in the case of Athens experimenting with a democratic form of government. Many ancient Greek individuals attended school and trained for professions like law and politics. Later, Roman civilization produced the first city to reach a million people and constructed durable roads that connected its 3,000 mile long bureaucratically controlled empire. Rome was able to field an army of 300,000 fully equipped soldiers, Roman aqueducts supplied fresh water to entire cities, and the Coliseum could hold a hundred thousand spectators. Medieval Europe pioneered the modern nation state, founded dozens of universities, and created a magnificent tradition of art, literature and music. At no time prior to European colonization had SSA ever made this kind of progress.
There were no instances of blacks devising an urbanized culture in Africa on their own initiative. The only time SSA experienced the advantages of civilization was when non-Negroid cultures introduced them. We have looked at some of the most prominent examples, such as Kush, Mali, and the Swahili states. In each instance these kingdoms originated as commercial centers, because of their strategic location, where non-Negroid peoples could come to trade for the riches of Africa. (2, P. 178) In each case the cultures of these urban centers came to resemble the culture of the civilizations that patronized them, like Egyptian Kush and Islamic Ghana. In each of these places a percentage of the black population was educated by and incorporated into the dominant Caucasian culture, while the surrounding black tribal populations were slow to absorb these outside influences or shunned them altogether in favor of their traditional ways. Those parts of Africa that made the most progress were the ones exposed to the advanced cultures of the Mediterranean, while more remote regions remained the most primitive. (12, V3, P. 8) The ebb and flow of urbanization in SSA depended upon where Caucasian civilization established a presence.
As the West became more developed, and its technologies more advanced, the cultural gap between SSA and Europe became increasingly lopsided. 19th century Europeans had breach loading guns, steamships, railroads, and telegraphs. When they began exploring the African interior in the mid-nineteenth century, their impression of black African villagers was of a technologically backward, culturally deficient people. (12, V5, CH. 13) Under the belief that blacks were not capable of extracting the natural resources of Africa and engaging in trade for them, they divided the continent amongst themselves for exploitation and changed the course of African history.
The colonization of Africa by European powers presents an enormous ambiguity. On the one hand, it would end SSA’s relative isolation and, through the direct transmission of European culture, give it a chance to catch up. Now, black Africans would not need to invent technology or devise more complex social institutions in order to improve their lives, they could simply absorb and incorporate the knowledge introduced by Europeans. Colonization represented a transfer of knowledge from a culturally advanced civilization to a culturally backward people on an unprecedented scale. Isolated villagers living in straw-and-mud huts suddenly gained exposure to Europe’s advanced technology and sophisticated forms of social organization.
On the other hand, the Europeans were not there by invitation. They imposed themselves upon Africa by force with their superior military technology. Today we deplore the maltreatment of blacks, forced servitude, and exploitation of Africa’s resources. The persons who were responsible authored a sad chapter in European history and mistreated Africans in a way that would never be tolerated by modern day enlightened society.
The question we focus on is the extent to which blacks used their innate intelligence to exploit the knowledge they learned from Europeans. In the interest of assessing black cognitive ability, we will look at how blacks responded to the new technologies and opportunities offered by European culture and evaluate the extent to which they leveraged that knowledge to further African development. For 90 years Europeans ruled Africa. We seek to determine to what extent black Africans – allegedly equal in intelligence to their colonial overseers – were able to capitalize upon their experiences under colonialism to move beyond their relatively impoverished cultural state.
Before describing the African colonization, it is instructive to recount the history of the Japanese when they were the ones confronted by European hegemony. Long before the Europeans colonized Africa, they imposed themselves on China, Vietnam, India, and other eastern countries. Wary of these developments, in 1587 Japan preemptively declared itself off limits to Europeans. It restricted trade with the outside world to only two Dutch ships a year, and banned Christianity. Then, nearly 300 hundred years later, Japan’s self-imposed isolation ended in 1855 when American warships sailed into Yokahama harbor. Helpless in the face of superior military might, the Japanese reluctantly signed a treaty opening themselves up to trade on terms favorable to the Western powers. At the time, Japan was a feudalistic society along the lines of medieval Europe. What is interesting is how the Japanese – a population with an average IQ among the highest in the world measured at 106 – responded to Western imperialism.
Humiliated by the treaty, and realizing that the world was changing, Japan embarked upon a process of rapid industrialization. Japanese leaders hired thousands of foreigners to teach their students English, Science, Engineering, and various other subjects. Thousands more students traveled abroad to American and European universities to acquire modern knowledge. Traditional Japanese society quickly gave way to a plethora of reforms including a fundamental overhaul of government, industry, banking, and other institutions. Large factories sprouted up, ports were modernized, railroads built, and Japan began to look like Europe. Lacking sufficient domestic raw materials for industrialization Japan imported what it needed and transformed it into finished goods for export.
More ominously for the United States, Japan’s army and navy embarked on a program to modernize its defensive and offensive military capability. By the 1920s, a mere 70 years after Commodore Perry’s visit, Japan had become one of the world’s premiere industrialized nations and a mighty naval power challenging the United States for preeminence in the Pacific. Japan’s transformation represents one of the most remarkable examples of cultural progress in so short a time span in human history. The takeaway from the Japanese experience is that Western technological advantages not only did not make subjugation inevitable, it opened up the possibility for rapid progress.
Beginning in the 1870s the European powers began dividing up the African continent; by 1900 – with the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia – all of Africa was under the flag of one or another European state. The colonial powers were England, France, Portugal, Belgium, and to a smaller extent Germany. By now, treatments for malaria and other diseases had lowered death rates to acceptable levels, and Europeans were able to live anywhere on the continent. The colonial powers broadly saw their purpose as two-fold: first, to enhance the economies of their homeland, and secondly to oversee African progress.
No two countries approached these missions with the same strategy. Belgium had the worst human rights record and garnered infamy for plundering the Congo on the backs of forced African labor. The French adopted a more enlightened approach that aspired to turn its African empire into French provinces, and to give native Africans full French citizenship. To this day France maintains close cultural ties with some of its former colonies. All of the powers encouraged organized religion to attempt to convert natives to Christianity and welcomed hoards of Christian missionaries who descended upon Africa to bring literacy to African children, among them many future African leaders. Over the 90 years of European hegemony, the colonies steadily improved their treatment of Africans, including abolishing forced labor by the end of World War I.
The European development of African infrastructure led to vast improvements in the living conditions of many blacks. Europeans installed hundreds of thousands of miles of roads that connected formerly isolated villages to the rest of the continent. They laid down hundreds of thousands of miles of railroad tracks to move freight. A single railroad had the carrying capacity of 180,000 laborers, thereby freeing up an enormous amount of human energy for more productive work. The Europeans established courts so that disputes could be settled without resorting to bloodshed. European police forces eventually put a stop to the ceaseless African tribal warfare, and by the end of the First World War for the first time in its history SSA had meaningful peace and stability.
Africans also received the marvels of modern medicine. Many Africans now received health care, so that instead of lying down to die of infection when cut, they could be treated with antiseptics. New treatments for malaria and other diseases drastically reduced African death rates. Villagers could visit a state of the art medical facility to replace the ineffective quackery of a village witch doctor. In each French colony, for example, there was a central hospital and satellite clinics throughout the territory. Many trained physicians from Europe went to Africa to practice medicine and made the rounds to African villages, resulting in a drop in infant mortality and a dramatic rise in African life span.
European investments and know-how revolutionized the economic possibilities for Africans. Colonial powers introduced modern agricultural techniques, supplied laborsaving farming equipment, and dispensed advice on best farming methods. Increased crop yields supported a much larger population base and eradicated famine in Africa. Whereas African farmers had previously eked out just enough to feed their families, European technology gave them the means to grow a significant surplus, a way to ship their output to markets, and thus the ability to make a profit from their labors. Under European rule, SSA became a significant exporter internationally and for the first time in history played a noticeable role in the world economy. Mining companies commenced operations all over Africa and became major employers of the indigenous population. Attracted by the new opportunities, villagers left their hometowns to take up residence in the mining compound where they could earn a living wage. Over time, European mining operations gradually improved the working conditions for Africans with better transportation, living quarters, and on-site medical care.
For many Africans colonization’s greatest impact on their lives would come from urbanization. Many major modern African cities were created during the time of colonization. France, England and the other European countries erected new cities from scratch to serve as colonial trading ports or administrative headquarters, attracting Africans from the hinterland in search of a better life. They were safer in the cities where they did not have to worry about accusations of witchcraft or attack by wild animals, and were attracted to the excitement of the big city that gave relief from the monotony of village parochialism. Urban housing, built using modern construction methods, was far more durable than traditional straw and mud huts, and an easily accessible public water supply saved hours of toil trekking to the nearest stream. The cities also introduced Africans to radio, electricity, automobiles, and newspapers.
Bringing technology and organization to a backward area created an urgent need to teach Africans how to operate a modern society. After several decades of colonization and significant economic development, the colonies had an insatiable need for technically skilled individuals. It took nurses, bookkeepers, mechanics, electricians, and every variety of skilled occupation to keep society running smoothly. The need for trained personnel presented opportunities for Africans, especially those living in the newly erected urban areas. Many blacks secured administrative positions within the colonial bureaucracy, an attractive alternative to manual labor that offered a fabulous life compared to the norm in Africa. Mining camps also required technical staff to manage and maintain their operations. And, for the more enterprising, the colonies offered unfettered opportunity to start a business.
At the beginning of the colonial era the European powers faced the daunting prospect of educating an illiterate population. Initially, this task primarily fell to the missionaries who migrated to small villages across the continent where they came ready to teach. They drilled the children in ABCs and had them practice writing by scratching letters in the sand. Sometimes missionaries encountered resistance from local chiefs, but once they understood the advantages that literacy brought their village, they actively sought out the services of the Christian teachers. In urban settings, religious societies built schools where African children could complete a full primary education, and as early as 1882 England’s Gold Coast colony was contributing state funds for education and setting educational standards for teachers. Blacks who became teachers had a high status in their community, indicative of the value Africans place on education.
After World War I, colonial administrations increasingly undertook the responsibility for educating schoolchildren. Especially in urban areas, the state erected a public system that replaced missionary work as the means of teaching the young. All of the colonies were part of bureaucratically controlled empires and they needed literate administrators, police who could file reports, teachers to staff schools, and so forth. After World War II an education boom occurred in Africa, as it did throughout the rest of the world, and colonial governments enrolled millions of African children and taught them European languages. Colonialism gave black children a much better chance of receiving an education than African self-rule. For example, in 1960 the English colony of Rhodesia had a population of 4 million and a primary school enrollment of 552,000 children, compared to un-colonized Ethiopia, with a population of 24 million, and a primary school enrollment of only 225,000 children. (18, P. 367)
European education of Africans sowed the seeds of the African independence movement. After World War II, some of the most promising students were able to further their education by attending college. For many this meant heading off to universities in Britain, France or the United States. However, some were also able to attend the newly erected universities in some of the larger African cities such as the University of Nairobi. Staffed by European scholars, African universities maintained high standards and excellent instruction. An educated black African elite emerged, steeped in Marxist philosophy taught by European academics, and capable of politically organizing the African masses. Opposed to European hegemony, they encouraged their fellow Africans to adopt an anti-colonialist stance and insist that Africans rule Africa.
As the call for independence gained steam, the colonial powers were pessimistic about turning the reins of government over to Africans. Even after several generations of European governance, SSA was still the world’s least urbanized and least developed region on earth. While colonial administrations had made efforts to educate the population, literacy was slow to spread, particularly in the villages. At the time of liberation, literacy in SSA was only about 25%. (20, P. 34) The colonies could not find enough Africans to fill technical and managerial positions, and had to import many skilled workers from Europe at a high rate of pay as an incentive to lure them to an area that lacked the comforts and amenities of home. While the colonies were free market economies, very few black university graduates went on to start businesses or to manage mines or factories, and instead sought teaching or administrative positions within the colonial bureaucracy. In a similar vein, the colonies saw influxes of immigrants who set up retail shops to sell groceries, clothing, and other necessities because so few blacks undertook the role. In the West African colonies, immigrants from India fulfilled the need for retail shops, and in east Africa Arabs from the Middle East. Many people, including a number of prominent black Africans, were skeptical that SSA was ready for self-rule.
Nevertheless, the yearning for freedom throughout the continent made African independence inevitable. With Africans vastly outnumbering Europeans, African leaders were in a position to demand a European exit. Sudan in 1956 was the first to gain independence and by the mid-1960s most of Africa was free of European hegemony. For the most part, the transition to African self-rule happened with relatively little violence. At the time, the world had high hopes for SSA’s future. Africans, along with much of the international community, regarded the continent’s prospects as bright. After 90 years of colonial rule, it was graduation time for Africans and they looked forward to an era of freedom and prosperity under self-rule.
Over the next 3 decades the world reacted to African developments first with disappointment, then with shock and finally a sense of despair. In the 1960s, still emerging from colonial rule, SSA economies grew at a moderate 2.2% per annum. In the 1970s growth dropped to an anemic .9% per annum, and then disastrously began to shrink in the subsequent two decades to a 1.1% contraction in the 1980s followed by .4% annual contraction the 1990s. (20, P. 90). A steadily increasing population combined with a shrinking economy inevitably adds up to lower living standards and rising poverty. It is stunning to consider that today more than half of sub-Saharan Africa’s 700 million people live on less than $1 per day. (21)
After the European exit, post-colonial Africa began to crumble. Roads, bridges, buildings, and electrical grids deteriorated either through neglect or lack of competent personnel to maintain them. Famine relief efforts often proved futile when thousands of tons of food – donated by the international community – rotted in ports because African governments were unable to distribute it to affected areas. Dictators and their henchmen replaced colonial governance. A continent that just a few years before, under European rule, had known peace and stability descended into frequent warfare, tribal feuding and civil disorder. Some areas, such as Somalia and the Congo, ceased having governments altogether. While there have been some modestly successful African countries since the end of European rule, the overall performance of SSA since independence, at least by western standards, has been abysmal.
Simply feeding their populations is a chronic problem for the countries of SSA. Under colonialism black Africa had been a food exporter, but since independence black Africans have been noticeably inept at implementing commercial farming operations with modern techniques and technology. As a result, Africa is the only continent today where countries routinely confront the prospect of famine. At the time Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, white farmers owned most of the arable land and grew enough food to feed the country and produce 80% of the country’s export revenue. Beginning in the 1990s, the country’s autocratic ruler Robert Mugabe forcibly ejected white farmers and gave their land to black soldiers and government cronies. With African farmers unable to run successful commercial farms, agricultural output plummeted, thousands starved and today a former breadbasket with an abundance of fertile land must now seek foreign aid to feed its citizens. (22)
A similar situation may be unfolding in South Africa. Prior to the transition to black rule in 1994, 40,000 white farmers ran almost all commercial farming enterprises, while 2.5 million black farmers either grew just enough for their own needs or were able to sell a small surplus at the local market. When the majority black government took power, it attempted to fulfill a promise of land reform by purchasing acreage from white farmers and giving it to blacks. The goal of creating a black farming class has proved disappointing; not only have 90% of black farms failed, a third of the black farmers have sold their land back to white farmers. Despite the failure of land redistribution, many black South Africans are demanding that the government follow the Zimbabwe model by seizing white farmland and giving it to blacks. (23)
Few people realize the extent to which post-colonial Africa today still lives in a state of dependency. Even its subsistence level existence is only made possible by huge subsidies from Western nations. Currently more than $50 Billion a year in direct foreign aid flows to SSA, an amount representing an astonishing one-sixth of black Africa’s economy, and this does not include the river of charity from thousands of non-governmental organizations such as Care and Unicef. Over the past 60 years direct grants from the governments of wealthy nations to SSA have exceeded $1 Trillion dollars. (21). In seven SSA countries – Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Somalia, Mali, Chad, Mauritania and Sierra Leone – more than 70% of the government’s budget comes from foreign aid. (21). The effort to develop Africa – more than half a century after liberation – is an immense business known as the African development industry, employing tens of thousands of western aid workers across the continent. (20, PP. 1,8). It is fair to describe Africa as a welfare continent.
Part of the African problem has been thuggish governments whose primary goal has been self-enrichment at the expense of the rest of the population. Ironically, while Africans liberated themselves from colonial rule, virtually nowhere in SSA are the people truly free. Too often a strong man comes to power in countries like the Ivory Coast or Uganda, which leads to banning political opposition, curtailing speech and assembly rights, controlling the media, and holding sham elections. (20, P. 71) This is a disaster for ordinary citizens who lack the ability to oust corrupt and inefficient governments at the ballot box. African governments are quick to resort to brutality and killing at any sign of popular opposition, using tanks and automatic weapons fire against unarmed protesters. Under these circumstances, aggrieved citizens can only attempt to organize armed resistance and try to wrest control through a coup or a civil war, a not uncommon event in Africa.
But it is political mismanagement on an epic scale that has led to the impoverishment and desperation of Africa’s people. After independence, African governments intruded into the private sector to try to spur growth and ended up curbing economic expansion. In most instances, African industries could not manufacture products at a low enough cost to compete with lower priced goods from abroad. Mismanaged industries, suffering heavy financial losses, were only able to remain in business with state subsidies making up the shortfall. (20, P. 102) Supported by state funding, and lacking incentive to operate efficiently, businesses became a drain on the treasury and eventually had to be allowed to fail.
Likewise, in the agricultural sector, government mismanagement and over-taxation led to declining agricultural output. (24, P. 14). In Ghana, for instance, in the 1970s government officials taxed the once thriving cocoa industry to pay for industrialization. But the burden was so heavy farmers stopped producing and crop output fell by two-thirds, causing tax revenues to plummet. To make up for large revenue shortfalls, most African governments borrowed heavily from Western nations to pay for massive social services for their people. They created bloated bureaucracies, erected costly social services programs and funded budgets with deficit spending, with no real hope of ever paying the borrowed money back. By the 1980s, mired in crisis, almost every African country appealed to western nations for financial help and debt forgiveness to save them from financial collapse. (20, PP. 103-106)
Alongside incompetent leadership, the explanation for African failure lies corruption on a massive scale. In 2002 the African Union estimated that corruption costs the continent $150 billion annually. (21). Not trivial when one considers the entire GDP of SSA that year was only about $550 Billion. (20, P. 4). African rebels fight wars just to gain control of the government spoils system, which in Africa is the route to wealth and success. The Big Man in charge of the government can reward his followers with civil service jobs and state contracts, even while government services go undelivered. Whoever controls the government can control industries, ban competition, and steal the revenues. With complete control of the state and no internal auditing measures to detect fraud, corrupt officials can route aid money from the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank to personal bank accounts. (24, P. 28). Corrupt government officials can make government loans to private corporations, owned by their cronies, that end up being just another form of embezzlement when they are never intended to be paid back. In Africa, a country’s president and his personal circle of friends become immensely wealthy, while the economy stagnates and neglected masses remain mired in poverty. Idi Amin of Uganda, General Mobutu of Zaire, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Charles Taylor of Liberia are infamous examples of the African leaders who stole billions and for whom the term kleptocracy – rule by thieves – was invented.
But the corruption also reaches down to the grass roots level. Ordinary citizens must often resort to bribing public officials just to get access to basic services. Parents may have to pay several weeks worth of salary to get their children enrolled in school. Average Africans must often pay public officials to get relatives buried or to entice police to file a report when a crime is committed. Day to day petty corruptions such as these, a sad yet pervasive part of life in SSA, are a hidden yet burdensome tax that further stresses the finances of the most impoverished people in the world. (24, P. 88)
Africa’s dismal post-colonial performance stands in stark contrast to the rapid economic development of East Asia. As Asia emerged from colonialism after World War II it was at least as underdeveloped as Africa. But whereas the liberated African countries became steadily poorer, Asian economies experienced rapid expansion and turned into industrial and technological powerhouses. For the 30 year period between 1970 and 2000 South Asia grew 2.4% annually, and East Asia expanded at an astonishing 5.7% per year. Despite its colonial past, Asia now garners 34% of the world’s economy, compared to SSA’s mere 2%. (25)
Asian countries succeeded in part due to intelligent management of their own economic development. After World War II Asia’s economies were in shambles; its impoverished people engaged in subsistence agriculture because there was very little industrialization and almost no factory jobs. But unlike Africa, much of Asia avoided placing industry under government control, and fostered economic growth through a robust private sector. Asian farmers, using modern agricultural methods, generated surplus revenues that funded the expansion of industry. Where governments invested in businesses they required companies to meet export goals in order to qualify for continued government assistance. Highly skilled economists oversaw the development process, and they insured that funding went to companies with good prospects, sound business practices, and the ability to manufacture products that were competitive on the international market. Those companies that could not compete lost funding and went out of business. With a skilled work force and prudent management of its economic development, Asian economies prospered and became globally dominant in many industries including electronics and automobile manufacturing. (20, PP, 107, 207)
Sticking to the premise that blacks have that same intelligence as whites, we are at a loss to figure out why Africa has failed to industrialize, establish stable democracies, and accumulate wealth. The continent has immense diversity, with an amazing variety of people, cultures, climates, soils, and natural resources. Yet we find not a single example of a black African country even close to climbing out of third world status. Only South Africa – a country founded and developed by whites – has industrialized into a first world nation. We can identify no common environmental factor that explains why Africa is so economically and politically backwards. It is not the legacy of slavery since large areas of SSA never subjected to slave raids are in the same boat as those that were. It is not the result of colonialism since Liberia and Ethiopia remained un-colonized, yet they too are economically primitive. Even African countries with conditions highly favorable for development fail to emulate the industrialization of developing nations like Vietnam or Brazil. The two SSA countries arguably in the best position to develop their economies are Botswana and Nigeria, so we will examine their situation for some insight.
On a per capita basis, Botswana is the most successful country in SSA (except South Africa) and is frequently hailed as an African miracle. Breaking the mold of other SSA countries, it has a low crime rate, holds elections every 5 years, enjoys political stability and an honest government, and benefits from a modern infrastructure consisting of roads, airports, hospitals, schools, and reliable telecommunications. The country has strong ties with its industrialized neighbor South Africa, and in fact its capitol city Gabaron is only 4 hours from Johannesburg and Pretoria via modern highway. It is also a former British protectorate, though at the time it gained independence in 1966 it was the poorest country in SSA. Its fortune changed dramatically one year later when the diamond English conglomerate DeBeers discovered the richest diamond deposits in the world and turned Botswana into the world’s top diamond exporter. Botswana’s diamond industry is owned by Debswana, an equal partnership between the Botswana government and DeBeers. Although diamonds remain the country’s cash cow, Botswana has prudently pursued economic diversity by expanding into finance, mining for bitumen and other natural resources, and tourism centered on its spectacular national parks.
Despite its economic success, in a way Botswana is a tale of two countries. It has the highest disparity of income between the rich and poor according to the GINI index (a measure of a country’s income inequality), and has a very small middle class. Ten percent of the population garners nearly half of the country’s income. It is so lacking an industrial base that 80% of its 2 million population – 98% of whom are black – still engage in subsistence agriculture. Compare that to the United States where less than 1% of the population works in the agricultural sector. Its real unemployment rate is estimated to be upwards of 40%, and a quarter of its population lives on less than a dollar a day. It isn’t that there are no good jobs available, for thanks to its diamond enterprises, the burgeoning financial industry, the tourism industry and a government sector that employs one in three in the labor force, there is a great demand for skilled personnel. Every Botswanan farmer aspires to a job in the government bureaucracy or with one of the foreign corporations that provide most of the jobs.
The problem is that Botswana can only keep its successful economy afloat with a subpopulation of technically competent white people. Foreign corporations own Botswana’s mining companies and banks, white Botswanan’s descended from British colonists own the tourism companies, and the Botswanan government awards more than 80% its contracts to foreign corporations. Botswana must import large numbers of foreigners – mainly white South Africans – to fulfill its high demand for cognitive talent. For example, foreigners staff over half of Botswana’s corporate managerial positions. Many Botswanans cynically refer to this as a foreign labor “aristocracy” who earn a substantially higher rate of pay and enjoy a lavish lifestyle compared to the average Botswanan. Meanwhile, the majority of black Botswanan’s languish in subsistence farming or menial labor. (26)
This is not due to a lack of educational opportunities. Botswana has always aspired to universal education for its citizens – no small task in a country the size of Texas with a sizable rural population. But thanks to its wealth Botswana educates over 98% of its children through the 7th grade, about half of whom go on to receive the Botswana General Certificate of Education upon graduating high school. Graduates are eligible for a free college education, provided they gain admission to one of the country’s many institutions of higher learning; there are 6 technical colleges, a college of accounting, a college of agriculture, and the flagship University of Botswana.
Despite its admirable 4-decade long commitment to universal education, Botswana’s efforts have not led to impressive results. Botswanan 8th graders score near the bottom on the standardized International Math and Science test, averaging 364 on the math test and 355 on the science. This compares to an international average of 500 on both tests, and a United States average of 508 and 520 respectively. Keep in mind that this is not a representative sample of Botswana’s cognitive talent, since the worst performing students do not enroll in the 8th grade and do not take the test. Despite its enviable educational infrastructure, Botswana is unable to produce students who can compete with students from Europe, Asia, and the United States, and is incapable of fulfilling its technical and professional needs from the ranks of its own population. (27)
Let’s take a look at Nigeria, the second wealthiest country in SSA behind South Africa. On paper, Nigeria would seem to have all of the advantages needed to become an economic powerhouse. Its enormous petroleum reserves yield 2.2 million barrels of oil per day and generate $70 billion in annual export revenues. It sits atop a vast reservoir of additional natural resources awaiting extraction, including 1.5 billion tons of coal, 67 billion barrels of shale oil, and 250,000 ounces of gold. In addition to its mineral wealth, it has 680 million hectares of arable cropland and an abundance of fresh water, making it an ideal candidate to become Africa’s breadbasket. With a population of 150 million and an underutilized labor force, Nigeria would seem well positioned for economic advancement. (28)
Despite its advantages, Nigeria has never been able to achieve prosperity for more than a small segment of its population. According to the World Bank, Nigeria’s enormous oil revenues accrue to the benefit of only 1% of the population, while more than half of Nigerians live hand to mouth on less than a dollar per day. The nation’s economic development is hampered by a culture of corruption, political mismanagement, and an unskilled work force. Its largest city Lagos – with a population of 16 million – is regarded as one of the most unlivable cities in the world. One can imagine the difficulties of living in a city of this magnitude with few roads and almost no electrical infrastructure.
Instead of turning its vast fertile lands into a thriving agricultural industry, Nigerian farmers use primitive and highly inefficient farming techniques that have led to declining agricultural output for decades. For example, over the past 25 years the country’s cocoa production has fallen by almost half to only 180,000 metric tons. As a result, a major food exporter under colonialism must now import a substantial share of its food needs, even though 70% of working Nigerians make their living by farming. Nigerians import most of the manufactured items they consume from the United States, China, and Europe. What limited industry and manufacturing that does exist in Nigeria is for domestic consumption only since its industries cannot compete in the international marketplace.
Like Botswana, Nigeria’s economic underdevelopment cannot be blamed on the neglect of its education system. The Nigeria Ministry of Education provides all Nigerians with free public education through the twelfth grade. Upon graduation, students take the Tertiary Matriculation Examination and those who qualify receive free college education at one of Nigeria’s more than 100 colleges and technical schools. Yet today Nigeria estimates that half of its population is functionally illiterate. (29) The foreign oil companies that run its oil production – primarily Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and Exxon – must recruit most of their skilled staff from outside of the country. Although there is a shortage of engineers, chemists, and other oil industry technicians, and although there is an abundance of educational resources to train Nigerians for these professions, Nigeria can only supply a small fraction of the demand for such skilled personnel from its indigenous population. (30)
The economic troubles of Botswana and Nigeria mirror the rest of SSA, where almost nowhere do we see multi-national corporations seeking to make investments or outsource production. (20, P. 226) American, Asian, and European corporations regard the entire planet as a vast labor pool, and will build production facilities wherever they find the cheapest competent source. Africa has vast untapped labor resources, where a job paying as little as $2 an hour would catapult a person into middle class status. Yet even this advantage is insufficient to entice foreign corporations to come to sub-Saharan Africa, where corporations are unable to operate factories profitably.
The pitfalls of operating a business in Africa are many. There is a dire shortage of workers with the skills needed to operate a factory or business. Even relatively wealthy African countries like Nigeria and Botswana, with their free education systems, cannot produce a skilled work force. Other impediments abound. Governments throughout the continent create burdensome regulations that inhibit business. Senegal, for example, requires the approval of 31 separate agencies and up to a 3-year wait to commence operations. (20, P. 234). There are also infrastructural problems. Dilapidated airports, decaying electrical infrastructure with random blackouts, and dreadful road conditions are the norm. In many parts of Africa road conditions slow traffic to 5 MPH due to crater sized potholes and lack of maintenance.
Moreover, at every turn public officials seek bribes in order to get business done in the world’s most corrupt continent. In many countries there is the ever present threat that a coup may lead to expropriation of private companies for a total loss to the owners. Even considering cheap African labor, all of the hidden costs of doing business make investment in Africa a losing proposition. Unable to industrialize on its own, Africa’s only real chance for development is by making itself suitable for international investment, yet nowhere on the continent do we find a country that has successfully managed to do that. When companies from the United States and Europe outsource they must instead look to places like Asia and South America.
What about outside of Africa? As a result of the slave trade, black genes dispersed into North America, South America, and the Caribbean. Some of these countries have predominately black populations, and some, like the United States, have a substantial black minority population. A few countries in Europe, as a result of immigration, also have sizable black populations. If we saw in these places a pattern of achievement comparable to the white norm, we could perhaps be tempted to dismiss SSA’s history of backwardness to some mysterious environmental factors particular to that continent.
There are no natural obstacles to economic development in Haiti, the largest black majority country outside of SSA. It has excellent farmland and is advantageously close to American markets. A former slave colony, Haiti’s overwhelmingly black population won independence in 1820 and has been in charge of its own destiny ever since. Aside from being the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere, in 2002 the World Bank named Haiti the most corrupt nation in the world. It is a two-tier society with a small mulatto elite and a majority black underclass. Over the past several decades its political elites have plundered hundreds of millions in foreign aid, allowing them to bask in luxury, while average Haitians struggle to survive on less than two dollars a day. Its capital city, Port-au-Prince, with a population of 3 million, has no sewer system. (43) Trash and human waste flow through open ditches, exposing inhabitants to diseases like cholera. For the most part foreign multinationals shun investment in Haiti whose illiteracy rate the united Nations estimates to be 65%. In January of 2012, two years after a devastating earthquake struck, half a million Haitians were still living in squalid camps waiting for someone to help them. (45) The idea that the plight of blacks in SSA is simply the result of living in Africa cannot withstand scrutiny.
The best place in the world for blacks to realize their potential for achievement is in America. The advantages of growing up in the world’s wealthiest country include abundant resources and virtually limitless opportunities. All black children have access to free education through the end of high school. Those with academic promise and college ambitions have an advantage over whites because of affirmative action. It is not uncommon for the best schools, like Harvard and Yale, to enroll black students with standardized test scores two or three hundred points lower than the white average. Upon graduation, talented blacks have virtually unlimited opportunity; affirmative action gives them a competitive advantage over whites for good jobs, and they are free to start a business in the largest economy in the world. There are no institutional constraints on black Americans, including election to the highest political office in the land.
One way to gauge black ability for achievement is to look at the accomplishments of majority black cities like Detroit and Washington DC. One can make the case that majority black American cities provide the best chance in history for blacks to showcase their inherent capability to emulate the white capacity for achievement. With the city’s affairs under black control, and free of any white ‘oppression’, their power to forge desirable communities is constrained only by the limits of their own abilities.
Detroit – approximately 85% black – is the largest example. It is unimaginable that if the city were 85% white we would have witnessed such an implosion. Once regarded as a model American city, made prosperous by a thriving automobile industry, white flight began in the late 1960s when the state government failed to stop race riots that left 43 dead. Today, under black rule, the city is famous for its crumbling infrastructure, crime infested neighborhoods, and urban decay. It has become such an undesirable place that 75 square miles of the city are veritable wastelands, bulldozers level entire neighborhoods to deter squatters, and a population that once exceeded 2 million has plummeted to 710,000. (39) The city’s leaders have utterly failed to create favorable conditions to attract new businesses to replace the declining automobile industry, and the city’s real unemployment rate is among the highest in the nation at 25%. (40) Undoubtedly, a contributing factor to its economic problems is the lack of a skilled work force. A recent study found that half of all adult Detroiters are functionally illiterate, and only 4% of the school system’s 8th graders meet the standards for proficiency in math as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The city has accumulated $13 billion in debt and is trying to avert bankruptcy. (31, 32, 39, 40)
Washington DC is another failed opportunity for blacks to demonstrate their aptitude to build desirable communities. In 1790 the United States Congress established DC as the nation’s capitol and administered it by congressional committee. During the slave era, DC harbored free blacks and developed a climate of racial tolerance, so it is understandable that after emancipation southern blacks flocked there to escape discrimination under Jim Crow. By 1970 DC was more than 70% black. Resentful of paternalistic control of the city, the majority black population viewed self-rule as a civil rights issue. Acquiescing to the pressure, in 1973 the congress passed the Home Rule Act giving DC autonomy over most of its affairs. While congress retained ultimate authority, the act provided residents the right to elect a mayor and 13 council members to run the local government.
The results of self-rule were not impressive. It coincided with a steady decline in city services and one of the nation’s highest crime rates, including the nation’s highest murder rate. Under DC Mayor Marion Barry, city services were notoriously neglected: trash was frequently not picked up, broken traffic lights went unrepaired, and unfilled potholes marred the roads. City management gained a nation-wide reputation for corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude. The city payroll became so bloated that city hall could not say how many employees worked for it. The child support division spent more money than it collected, the welfare department spent twice the national average on administration, and the school system had the second highest administrator-to-teacher ratio in the country. In 1989 the Washington Monthly magazine labeled DC the worst run city in America.
The city’s housing authority exemplified the deterioration of municipal services. Thanks to federal funding, the department had ample resources to provide decent housing for the city’s poor, but what it lacked was good management. The city owned thousands of rental units that remained vacant while impoverished citizens in need of housing were turned away. Meanwhile, the same agency overpaid shady contractors for rental units at multiple times the going rate that businesses paid for prime real estate. In cases where broken plumbing and pest infestation demanded attention, city personnel ignored maintenance requests and turned a blind eye to the deplorable conditions. In the words of the Washington Times, “In D.C., misery has won. The government's mismanagement is so complete that the passive sins of its inept bureaucracy surely rival any active ones of business exploitation as an oppressor of the poor.” (33)
In 1995 congress rescinded local rule in order to avert financial disaster. With the city running a $700 million deficit and on the verge of insolvency, the United States Congress created The Financial Oversight Board to assume control over every aspect of the city’s governance. The five-member board exerted complete authority over municipal spending, financial planning, borrowing, personnel hiring, and management of contracts, and was able to keep the city afloat only by borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury. Not until 2001 was the congress able to restore the city’s finances to the point where it was able to return the city to self-rule. (34)
Nor do black American ghettos offer any evidence of a latent black capability for achievement. Digital cartographer Eric Fischer drew racial maps of the 25 largest cities in America based upon 2010 census data. They depict the well-defined borders between self-segregated black and white neighborhoods in cities like Philadelphia, Houston, Milwaukee, and Los Angeles. Invariably, from coast to coast, black zip codes are the worst places to live with high unemployment, welfare dependency, drug use, and elevated crime rates. We fail to see examples of black enclaves that break the mold and are bastions of cleanliness, organization, safety, and entrepreneurship – all of which are hallmarks of high achieving populations. None of the black sub-populations within the 25 cities give any reason to believe that there is some latent black potential to achieve at a level equal with whites.
Even in the best of circumstances we do not see black achievement approach the white standard. Millions of American blacks live in integrated suburbs and enjoy all the advantages of middle class status including good incomes, high quality education, and professional qualifications. In most cases, affirmative action has played a role in their success. As we have discussed, the rationale for preferential treatment is that improved environmental circumstances will nullify the advantage whites have and close the achievement gap. Yet, in practice, affirmative action does not have that effect and middle class blacks have a very difficult time maintaining their socioeconomic status. A study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that half of all blacks reared in middle class families eventually fall back into poverty, examples of so-called downward mobility. (35)
It is not the result of discrimination. The study found that blacks and whites with the same level of training have the same rates of success. What the Pew study found is that blacks fall more frequently because they fail to acquire the necessary skills to obtain a middle class job. While affirmative action can elevate blacks into the ranks of the middle class, it cannot keep them there when they lack the cognitive ability to acquire adequate professional training. The inability of blacks to keep up with whites – even with affirmative action stacking the deck in their favor – does not support the notion of equal innate racial ability.
The higher up the cognitive ladder we go, the wider the racial achievement gap. (37) This is the opposite of what we would expect to see for two populations with the same genes for IQ. According to liberal elites, a middle class suburban upbringing is all that stands between blacks and the ability to compete equally with whites. We should therefore reasonably expect upper middle class blacks, who do not lack money and opportunities, to demonstrate equal rates of achievement with the best white college students. Same genes, same favorable environment for IQ, the result should be equal outcomes. At a minimum, we would expect to see a dramatic narrowing of the achievement gap.
Instead, we observe a widening achievement gap when comparing black cognitive elites with white cognitive elites. Although blacks are 14% of the nation’s high school population, they take only about 6% of the high school Advanced Placement tests each year. These are nationally standardized tests, taken by the top high school students seeking to earn college credits. To prepare for the exams, the students take college level classes at their local high school and study the same material. A score of 3 – out of a possible 5 points – is the minimum needed to pass the test and earn the credits. In 2007, blacks who took the test averaged a score of 2 and passed only 25% of the tests they sat for, compared to the white average of 3 and a 62% pass rate. On the most difficult tests, like physics and computer science, the racial scoring gap is even wider. (36)
At the PhD level we find few blacks receiving doctorates in the most intellectually challenging fields. In 2004, of the approximately 26,000 doctorates awarded, blacks earned only 7%. However, two-thirds of black doctorates came from the less challenging fields of education (40%), the social sciences (18%) and humanities (9%) where academic standards can be lowered without noticeable impact. Although blacks are 12% of the population, even with affirmative action their percentage of doctorates in hard sciences is limited: only 2.4 percent in biology, 2.3 percents in chemistry, 1.4% in engineering, 1.3% atmospheric science, 1 percent in general physics, and .7 percent in computer science. In some of the most challenging areas there were no black doctoral recipients including statistics, nuclear physics, astronomy, and meteorology. (41)
Black underachievement in a mixed-race society is by no means a phenomenon peculiar to the shores of America. In every other country where significant black and white populations coexist, we observe the same configuration of high black unemployment, crime and dependency. Except for Nigeria, Brazil has the largest black population in the world – a legacy of Portuguese sugar plantations that imported millions of African laborers. The racial divide in Brazil is much more pronounced than seen in the United States, since racial disparities are unrelieved by government wealth transfers or affirmative action. In Brazil, black incomes are about half the white average, most of the country’s elites are whites, and it is common to see rich white enclaves fenced off from sprawling black ghettos. (38)
We see a similar situation in Europe, the chosen destination of many blacks from former colonies searching for a better life. In France, where an estimated 4% of the population is black, the law prohibits the government from keeping statistics by race. However, that may change if French black elites get their way. More than 60% of blacks feel that French society discriminates against them, and black leaders are currently seeking to overturn France’s colorblind policy and implement affirmative action using the United States as a model. 
We must ask ourselves, if blacks are endowed with the same alleles for intelligence as whites, where is the evidence for it? No black African culture ever invented a society with complex social organization, innovated impressive technologies, or presented the world with a high level of philosophical, literary or religious thought. Historically, when non-Negroid peoples from North Africa, Europe, and Asia introduced aspects of their more advanced cultures to SSA, black Africans were either slow to reproduce it or shunned it altogether in favor of their simpler traditional tribal ways.
The trend continues in modern times. Not a single black SSA country in the post-colonial era has come close to industrializing, despite trillions of dollars in aid and a gargantuan effort by western nations to facilitate the process. The infrastructural foundation erected by the colonial powers has deteriorated, in many cases without replacement, leaving the vast majority of sub-Saharan Africans without adequate water, electricity, medical care and safe, reliable roads for travel. (42) Excluding South Africa, most technological modernization that does occur in SSA is designed and constructed by foreign white or Asian companies. Outside of SSA, black majority countries like Haiti and Jamaica are no more capable of industrialization and integration into the world economy than the nations of SSA. The same predictable pattern of underachievement is seen among black sub-populations in Europe, the Caribbean and South America.
In America, where blacks have the best opportunity to display their innate intellectual abilities, even in optimum conditions they are unable to match white achievement. The educational and life opportunities offered in America are envied the world over, yet even with the aid of affirmative action the black achievement gap with whites is glaring. In the largest urban areas, the highest crime and poverty rates are invariably found in segregated black neighborhoods. The worst prospects for blacks are found in majority black cities like Detroit, Gary, and Washington DC where black control of local government leads to mismanagement and economic decline. Even American blacks who grow up privileged cannot compete with impoverished whites without affirmative action.
It is beyond fathoming that a population with the same alleles for high intelligence as whites would never in history bring to fruition its inherent ability to emulate white levels of achievement. The fact that all black populations around the world throughout history exhibit precisely the same pattern of underperformance and dependency eliminates the possibility that they are simply victims of environmental deprivation. If blacks actually had the same alleles for high IQ as whites, there is no conceivable combination of factors that could conspire to suppress their innate cognitive ability and capacity for cultural and technological progress to an equal degree around the globe. Genes just do not work that way. To believe that genes are not the explanation, one would have to come up with a different environmental explanation that excuses black failure to fulfill their inherit potential to emulate white culture in each of the numerous and varied environments throughout history where they have established a presence, including sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, North and South America, and Europe. While the unbroken pattern of black underachievement throughout history is completely inconsistent with an environmental explanation, a black population genetically endowed with lower IQ comprehensively explains it. Therefore, because there is no historical evidence demonstrating a black proclivity for white levels of accomplishment, we must conclude that history does not support the claim that blacks have the same genetic predisposition for high IQ as whites.
References
_______________________
1. Lynn, R. and Vanhannen, T., IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Praeger Publishers (February 28, 2002)
2. Adler, Philip J. and Pouwels, Randal L., World Civilizations, 4th ed., Thompson Wadsworth Co., 2006
3. Gates, H. L., Appiah, K. A., Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African-American Volume 1., P. 111, Oxford University Press. 2005
4. Lefkowitz, Mary R. and Rogers, Guy MacLean, Black Athena Revisited, University of North Carolina Press, 1996
5. Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993. Clines and Clusters Versus "Race": A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36:1-31.
6. Irish J. D. 1998b. Diachronic and synchronic dental trait affinities of late and post-pleistocene peoples from North Africa. Homo. 49(2) 138-155
7. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., P. Menozzi, and A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press
8. Di Rienzo, A., et al. 1994. Mutational processes of simple-sequence repeat loci in human populations.
9. Hammer, M. et al. 1997. The geographic distribution of human Y chromosome variation. Genetics 145(3):787-805, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A. 91(8):3166-70.
10. Poloni, E. et al. 1997. Human genetic affinities for Y-chromosome p49a,f/TaqI haplotypes show strong correspondence with linguistics. American Journal of Human Genetics 61(5):1015-35
11. Bosch, E. et al. 1997. Population history of North Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers. Human Biology. 69(3):295-311.
12) Fage, J. D. and Olivier, Roland, The Cambridge History of Africa, Cambridge University Press, London, 1977
13) Josephy, Alvin M. Jr., Horizon History of Africa, American Heritage Publishing Co., New York, 1971
14) Fage, J. D., A short history of Africa, 1989
15) Shinnie, Margaret, Ancient African Kindgoms, Edward Arnold Publishers, London, 1965
16) Trimingham, J. Spencer, A History Of Islam In West Africa, Oxford Paperbacks, 1975
17) Fage, J. D., A history of West Africa: an introductory survey, 4th ed., London, Cambridge U.P., 1969.
18) Gann, L. H., Duignan, Peter, Burden Of Empire, Pall Mall Press, London, 1968
19) Baker, J. R., Race, Foundation for Human Understanding, Athens, GA, 1981, pP. 507-508
20) Moss, Todd J., African Development: making sense of the issues and actors, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007
21) Moyo, Dambiso, Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa, The Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2009
22) Bufana, Bufani, Zimbabwean Agriculture On Its Knees, The New Agriculturalist, May, 2008
23) The Australian, South Africa's black farmers selling their farms back to previous white owners, September 1, 2011
24) Calderisi, Robert, The Trouble With Africa
25) Kambayashi, Satoshi, East Or Famine, The Economist, Feb. 25, 2010
26) Mogalakwe, Monageng, The making of a foreign “labour aristocracy” in Botswana, Journal of Labor, volume 30, Number 4, 2008
27) Gonzales, Patrick, Highlights From TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context,September 2009
28) Untapped Economic Opportunities, Nigeria Business Week, 2/27/2010
29) Sams, Ngozi, Over 70 Million Nigerians are Illiterate, Timbuktu Media, Ngozi Sams, 2/4/11
30) Peek, Peter et. al., Skills shortages in the global oil and gas industry, Centres De Researches Enterprises Et Societes, December, 2008
31) Nearly Half Of Detroit's Adults Are Functionally Illiterate, Report Finds, Huffington Post, 5/7/11
32) Robelen, Erik W., Urban Districts Post Gains in NAEP Math, Education Weekly, Dec. 7, 2011
33) DeParle, J., The Worst City Government In America – Washington, DC, Washington Times, January, 1989
34) Janofsky, M., Congress Creates Board To Oversee Washington DC, New York Times, 4/8/95
35) Fletcher, Michael A., Many In U.S. Slip From Middle Class, Study Finds, Washington Post, 9/6/11
36) More Blacks Are Competing in Advanced Placement Programs, But the Racial Scoring Gap Is Widening, Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2008
37) Viadero, D., Black-White Gap Widens Faster for High Achievers, Education Weekly, Nov. 6, 2011
38) Jack Chang, A Great Divide, Miami Herald, 6/17/2007
39) 2010 United States Census
40) Wisely, J., Cash Strapped Detroit Approves Debt Rescue Plan, USA Today, 4/6/2012
41) Doctoral Degree Awards to African Americans Reach Another All-Time High, Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2006
42) The World Bank, Fact Sheet: Infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa
43) Knox, R., Port-Au-Prince: A City Of Millions, With No Sewer System, NPR News, 4/13/2012
44) Ajayi, J. F. A. et al., History of West Africa V. 1, Columbia University Press, New York, 1976
45) Trevelyan, L., Haiti's tent cities signal long road to quake recovery, BBC News, 1/11/2012
Conclusion
_______________________
Public views on racial IQ have little to do with facts and much to do with misreporting by the mainstream media. A good example is BBC television’s 7-part series entitled “Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo”. When the show first aired in October of 2009, the editors advertised it as an objective investigation into the forbidden topic of racial intelligence. It was a rare and welcome instance of the mainstream media presenting this volatile issue to the public. What was objectionable was the false impression it conveyed, in typical media fashion, about what the scientific evidence actually tells us about racial intelligence. The host of the program, who is black, ended the final episode by declaring that lower black IQ is solely the result of social and economic factors. He leaves the audience with the false impression that the racial IQ gap is shrinking, and that genes play no part in group IQ differences. The show simply reinforced the prevailing public misunderstanding of racial intelligence that the mainstream media has been dispensing for the past 50 years.
In a blatant effort to uphold the liberal dogma on racial IQ, the show’s producers selectively presented information and omitted facts in order carefully frame the debate. Among the hackneyed reasons cited for lower black IQ: poverty, substandard black parenting, a deprived rearing environment, a disdain for educational achievement, lack of ambition, and peer pressure to underachieve academically. The series barely touched upon the role of genes and implied that scientists who subscribe to a genetic explanation are racist and outside of the scientific mainstream. There was scarcely a word about the separate evolutionary histories of the races, and the tens of thousands of years that they spent evolving in starkly contrasting environments. The audience comes away with the impression that lower American black IQ is an outcome of American society’s unfairness, callousness, and neglect.
As we have seen, the only reasonable way to come to grips with racial disparities in America is by acknowledging the role of genes and evolution. Ancestors of the white population migrated out of Africa into a colder northern environment for which they lacked the physiological traits needed for survival. Over the course of about 80,000 years, their gene pool changed to adapt them to their new environment in a manner entirely consistent with previous hominid evolution: by evolving higher intelligence. The ice age European environment penalized low IQ alleles and rewarded the alleles for improved cognitive ability, and over time steadily raised the white population’s average. The comparatively mild African environment did not exert the same natural selection pressure on the trait of intelligence and did not raise the African average. Because of a unique evolutionary history, the gene pool of the white population evolved a greater frequency distribution of high IQ alleles that imparted a higher average. By the time Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans began interacting in the late 15th century, whites had about a 30-point IQ advantage over indigenous blacks. With the slave trade, and the immigration of millions of blacks to America, racial intermixing transferred European alleles into the black gene pool, and reduced the IQ gap to about 17 points.
Contrary to liberal dogma, black underachievement in America is not an aberration; blacks have never matched white cultural accomplishments at any time in history. It does not matter in what part of the world, or in what century, the story is always the same: black populations produce less material wealth, organize less complex societies, exhibit a lack of technological innovation, and display a dearth of creative literary, philosophical, and religious thought in comparison to whites. History forces us to acknowledge an observable difference in the level of cultural accomplishment between the two races since prehistoric times, and to recognize that the achievement gap in America simply continues a well-established pattern. To a significant degree, the ascendancy of so many blacks into the American middle class is a result of affirmative action and government redistribution of wealth. As lower average black income and educational outcomes are entirely consistent with an historical pattern of black underachievement, as well as innate differences in cognitive ability, there is no reason to expect that the American black population’s achievement levels will ever rise to the level of whites.
The question we face is whether we will continue to allow America’s current aspiration to eliminate racial disparities in outcome to serve as a pretext for expanding government. The pursuit of equal racial outcomes threatens to undermine the foundations of the American experiment. The American dream hinges upon the notion that everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, should have the opportunity to succeed and create their own version of the good life. The pillars of the American success are free markets, rule of law, private property, and constitutional protections against overreaching state power. These underpinnings have endowed America with the boundless energy, innovation, and productivity that have given its people unprecedented prosperity and freedom. Yet for all of the undeniable successes of America, critics point to the statistics of racial disparity and condemn it as inherently unjust. They seek to impose upon the private sector top-down oversight by government and eventually replace it by bureaucratic rule. Our refusal to acknowledge that blacks and whites differ in their average capacity for achievement, and that under capitalism blacks will statistically underperform whites, allows the institutional left to press their agenda on grounds of remedying alleged racial injustice.
America’s survival requires an acknowledgment that we are dealing with distinct racial groups. While we celebrate the fact that all individuals inherit the same civil rights and equal human worth, we can also take account of the fact that evolution did not endow blacks and whites with exactly the same abilities. Most white people feel comfortable with the notion of providing for themselves in a free market economy, conducting their affairs in a responsible way, and making the right decisions for their families without the need for government oversight. The black population, endowed with lower cognitive ability, is by nature less suited to thriving in a free market economy. They are more prone to viewing government as a benefactor to whom they should be able to turn to for assistance, and they are more easily enticed by demagogic promises of government largesse in exchange for their vote. Relatively few blacks have an interest in defending the traditional American values of self-reliance and economic liberty as much as they do supporting a more powerful government that distributes wealth according to need. We should acknowledge these two very different perspectives, and the biological reasons behind them, in order to more effectively defend the principles of free market capitalism. 
The solution to lower black cognitive ability is to cease measuring the performance of blacks by the white benchmark. An America where whites and Asians statistically outperform blacks in education and professional success is entirely consistent with fairness, given differences in racial IQ. It is folly to lower standards and grant racial preferences, when to do so serves no remedial purpose, offers no long-term solution, and undermines the quality of America’s institutions. Instead of measuring success by how closely blacks match white rates of achievement, and regarding black statistical underperformance as a sign of failure, racial reality means acknowledging that when we uphold high standards whites will outperform blacks, at least whenever cognitive ability is involved. This is not cause for alarm, nor does it signify that society is unjust; it is a natural outcome of racial differences.
Finally, we must reject the notion that America is a racist society. Whatever prejudices exist in America – in all directions, not just white against black – is not what is causing higher rates of black underachievement. The vast majority of white people subscribes to the ideal of equal opportunity for all, without regard for race, and abhors the notion of limiting an individual’s opportunity for success simply because of their skin color. Unfortunately, we have conflated our commitment to racial fairness with equality of outcome. If traditional American values are to triumph, we must eschew the idea that, in a racially fair society, all racial groups will achieve at the same rate. Instead, we should pursue policies that are colorblind, and that benefit all citizens, without regard to their impact upon one or another racial group. Accusations of institutionalized racism, and condemnation of racial differences in outcome, that will inevitably arise in a colorblind society, should be refuted with the overwhelming evidence of racial differences in IQ.
The first step in resolving America’s racial quagmire is ending affirmative action. Banning affirmative action is a rejection of the idea that America is racist and requires transforming in order to achieve fairness. To check the progress of socialism we must defeat the idea that white Americans subjugate blacks. Prohibiting racial preferences also reaffirms the country’s commitment to free market principles, because it undermines the notion that an appropriate exercise of government power is to intervene in the economy in order to engineer social outcomes. In a tolerant society like America, enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in civil and criminal courts is sufficient to deter actual discrimination. For those who believe that Americans are many races, but one people, eradicating government sponsored discrimination strikes a blow against the balkanization of America and represents a refusal to allow demagoguery to divide the country by race for political gain. America can only become racially harmonious when government regards all citizens as equal in the eyes of the law and Americans regard themselves as one people united in the common cause of making this the best country that it can be.