The Big Brain Cipher – The fallacies in J. Philippe Rushton 's theory

The Big Brain Cipher – The fallacies in J. Philippe Rushton 's theory

Many are familiar with J. Philippe Rushton . Rushton is a British born psychologist that believes Black Africans low IQ scores are due to the fact Black Africans have smaller brains than Europeans and Asians. The fact that Rushton is a psychologist and has arrived at this conclusion all the more points to his own short comings. Being a psychologist one should factor in all available data from socio-economic, environmental and psycho-social data-all aspects of psychology not just brain size and genetics which are aspects of biology. Again Rustin is a psychologist, he is neither a geneticist nor biologist.  It seems Rushton has failed to take in all possible data relevant to such a study purposely or by lack of insight on his own part. Rushton also has arrived at his conclusions using indirect data. For example Rushton jumps to the conclusion that African American low IQ is due to African Americans having a smaller brain with out factoring in psycho-social & or environmental factors. Nor does he delve into brain anatomy or function, two things that also could possibly explain away any assumed big brain advantage. These are all factors I will address and in the end clearly illustrate the holes in Rushton's theory.

I will briefly state that most minorities are marginalized & suffer from some form of oppression or discrimination by the larger group they live near or with in. The Dalits and North East Indians of India, American Indians, Rohingya Muslims of Burma, Palestinians and almost any marginalized or minority group has been labeled lazy, ignorant, violent and suffers from unemployment and poor education. So when looking at other marginalized populations outside and with in the U.S. one finds the same social-environmental dynamics and the same symptoms. It takes a small leap of logic to conclude the socio-environmental conditions are the primary causation of the social ills or at the very least significant contributing factors. Where you have a population that is discriminated against you will also find members of the dominant/privileged  group assuming the symptoms of this discrimination(lack of achievement, crime, etc) are inherent natural traits of the oppressed group. Rushton being a member of a privileged group has fallen into this faulty line of thinking. Clearly there are psycho-social dynamics that are in effect here that Rushton seems to overlook in the case of Black Americans. Either ignoring, minimalizing or dismissing as non existent the effects of slavery, Jim Crow (American Apartheid) and systemic racism (such as conservative pundits such as Dinesh D'Souza does) has had on stifling Black academic achievement and IQ levels the psychologist J.Ruston choses to theorize this lack of achievement is based in genetics and biology. Again for a psychologist to ignore phenomena rooted in his field of study and to base his theory on phenomena out side his field of expertise is not only strange but disturbing.

So lets address the "boogie man" / "elephant" in the room

Are Europeans and Asians brains bigger than Black Africans?

Why yes they are but here lies the rub. European and Asians also have bigger eyeballs. In fact all people living in and or native to northern latitudes have bigger brains and eyeballs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804214410.htm

You can see this dynamic with in the populations living at varying latitudes in Europe. As you travel north in latitude studies show Northern Europeans have bigger eyeballs and brains than Southern Europeans

This being the case the people with the biggest brains and eyeballs are Eskimos or the Inuit people who live near the North Pole. European and Asian brains are bigger in the areas dealing with sight. During the ice age it was dark and difficult to see. Also today due to sunlight refraction it is more difficult to see in Northern latitudes.

Neanderthal man who was an early cousin to homo sapiens (us) evolved during the ice age and had a bigger brain than any human.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130319093639.htm

We can tell from early Neanderthal artifacts they were less intelligent than homo sapiens archaic or homo sapiens sapiens(us/modern man) so their bigger brains did not equate to a higher intelligence. In fact it appears to have been substantially lower

Europeans and Asians like Neanderthal developed in the northern hemisphere during ice age climatic changes. Both Asians and Europeans evolved bigger eyes and optic nerve areas to see better and developed bigger brains to deal with the extra sight sensory input

So now we understand "why" Europeans and Asians have bigger brains. The next question is does this correlate with their inherently having a higher IQ than Africans?

First lets look at two areas of the brain Asians and Europeans have increased size and have more grey matter dedicated to:



Above we have illustrated the visual cortex . Again note this extra brain matter is dedicated to analyzing increased visual input. Another area larger in Asians and Europeans are the lateral ventricles (seen in image below) These are filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) which bathes and cushions the brain and spinal cord . The lateral ventricles do not consist of any grey or white matter.


Cognitive functions such as -executive functions, planning, abstract reasoning, impulse control, sustained attention and insight are not carried out in these areas. These functions are carried out primarily in the frontal lobe were the Orbitofrontal Cortex is located.
 African Americans in fact have a larger orbitofrontal cortex  than Caucasians.

African Americans in fact have a larger orbitofrontal cortex than Caucasians . The orbitofrontal cortex carries out many cognitive functions.

 

 

The Plos study states that over all :
"there were no statistically significant differences in total gray matter, total white matter, or ventricular CSF volumes. (Plos-  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013642 )

The study goes on to state-  "In models examining specific brain regions, the only statistically significant difference was that African-Americans exhibited larger left OFC volumes than Caucasians. However, when regional ratios were examined (regional volume/total cerebral volume), the African-American cohort exhibited greater ratios for the right amygdala and bilaterally for the OFC "

 

Another point Rushton glazes over is the fact that women have smaller brains than men. When asked about this in a recent documentary “Race and Intelligence : Science's Last Taboo" Rushton stated that “the difference between men and women’s brains is due to spatial ability, the difference between White, Black and East Asian brains is due to general intelligence” he ends this statement in saying “ this is what we think.” He does not explain why brain size does not correlate to higher intelligence between White men and White women but he indicates brain size is something significant between Blacks and Whites. He simply states this is what he thinks. Again he does not factor in any environmental or cultural elements that a psychologist should. Rushton is arriving at conclusions from biological and incomplete educational data. I say incomplete because if I test an African American child raised in a drug and gang infested project and a White child raised in suburbia and conclude the Blacks lower score is due to his or her brain size alone I am disregarding the whole environmental factor. Not until I can test a Black person and White person who not only share the same economic bracket but both have cultures that support or encourage education my test data will always be skewed. As a psychologist Rushton should understand that the psychological legacy of racism and slavery has affected Black culture negatively and the presence of systemic racism in today's society act as a negative psychological effect. A psychologist should not be negating these factors and should be doing further research into them to arrive at an accurate answer. The conclusion Rushton has arrived at is the equivalent of a florist stating the white roses grown in fertilizer and sunlight are inherently superior to red roses grown in poor soil not only because the white roses have grown bigger & taller but because the roses are white. If the florist does not consider the conditions the roses were grown in the florist conclusions will be invalid.


Some might theorize "well" since Europeans & Asians have bigger eyeballs thus cans see better and have a bigger brain dedicated to the increased sensory input and the analysis of this input perhaps this gives them some type of edge. The opposite of this is shown in studies. People who are myopic (nearsighted) tend to have higher IQ’s
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/20/science/study-links-intelligence-and-myopia.html


So this would suggest the increased eyesight of Asians and Europeans would at best be a non factor in intelligence

Again I must point out the whole brain size argument is invalid because again Whites and Asians only possess more brain matter used for sight sensory intake and processing. This is the same as if certain human groups had a brain that possessed a larger primary olfactory cortex for smelling . This in no way would make one smarter.

The latest studies state that overall a bigger brain(with in the human range of 1100 grams to 1400 grams)does not equate to higher intelligence.
http://www.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html

You do have older yet relatively recent studies that state brain size does equate to higher intelligence and men are more intelligent than women because of this. Throwing a wrench in the conclusions arrived at by these studies are women like the last Guinness world record holder for IQ - Marilyn vos Savant who IQ was tested at 228.

Black Africans and other dark skinned peoples possess higher amounts of melanin & melatonin which acts as an neurotransmitter by which neurons (brain cells) communicate to each other. This coupled with the fact Blacks have a functional pineal gland and a larger orbitofrontal cortex arguments can be made that Black Africans are more intelligent and this is why many are still able to achieve academically and economically in spite of a societal system that’s is set against them.

I theorize people such as Rushton not only suffer from a cultural arrogance but psychologically deal with "White guilt" by placing blame on the victims for a plight their ancestors have placed them in and they themselves have helped perpetuate or remained apathetic to. This is a well known psychological defense tactic. In fact the term "blaming the victim" was a term coined by William Ryan  in his 1971 book Blaming the Victim. In the book, Ryan described victim blaming as an ideology used to justify racism and social injustice against black people in the United States 
(wiki-   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming    )
You will find this "victim blaming attitude" common in people who are part of the upper, ruling  or privileged classes. By labeling a people  inherently inferior the inference is  made that their socio economic condition is of their own making. This slippery slope could even have one arrive at the conclusion that slavery, colonization and all other subjugation of peoples of color throughout the world are the fault of the subjugated. This circles around to the ‘White mans burden” mental state that states Europeans have done colonized peoples a favor for bringing them technology and so called civilization. The North Western Europeans who control much of the world seem to have forgotten they were the barbarians who with their "big brains" brought about Europe’s dark ages. They have forgotten they have borrowed (directly or indirectly) most of the technology that allowed them to conquer the world from their Asian, Arab and African brothers. Such theories as Rushton’s fall flat in the face of the absence of any early ancient North Western European civilizations.  You will find no pyramids in ancient Berlin no Pantheons in an ancient Norway. All early civilization are found near or with in the worlds tropical zone. Europe’s earliest civilization were the Minoans who were located south of Italy on the modern Islands of Crete and Thera, the most southern parts of Europe-nearest to Africa and the middle east.

 

In many ways I regard the African American as a Ferrari engine that’s been drop into a Chevy chassis and connected to a Ford transmission. An unsuspecting driver will curse the engine stating that it is a piece of junk and just doesn’t run right. The fact is that the reason for the malfunction is that the engine has been connected to a system that is not designed for it. Even though the Ferrari is one of the worlds best built and efficient engines as long as its connected to a system not designed for it, it will perform badly. This has been the Black mans plight in North America. A human with so much potential but held back by the very system he must live in.

(Brilliant Blacks From BCE to Present)

Imhotep

 Mansa Musa

 Angelo Soliman

                                            Neil deGrasse Tyson

Black Shang Theory Explained

  
 

One of the 1^st  theories I came across when I began studying Afro centric history was the Black origins of Chinese civilization or commonly known as the “Black Shang Theory”. What I have discovered is that this theory is in error due to the context it is usually delivered and taken in. The Theory states that the Shang Dynasty which was a pre imperial dynasty located near the Yellow rivers valley was of "Black" African origins. It is commonly agreed the Shang developed much of the  roots of what would become dynastic China. This theory was developed before genetic testing so many claims could not be verified or debunked. Artifacts and skelatal remains of the Shang depicted a "non" mongoloid peoples.  This lead to the remains being labeled "proto-mongoloid" by  western anthropologist.  The truth is that the Shang were a non mongoloid peoples being related to Melanesians and Polynesians. Here is where the “Black” Shang theory more than likely developed.  Melanesians look like Black Africans and Polynesians are dark skinned peoples also. With the advancement of genetics we have discovered although Melanesians and other dark skinned people may look like Africans outwardly they are Asians & Austaloids genetically. I believe when early Shang  artifacts were discovered their  “Black” appearance lead to them being labeled as a Black African peoples by Afro centrics. Euro centrics created and applied the ambiguous term “proto-mongoloid” to the Shang. (Creating obscure terms is a practice Euro centrics have long done when they wished to deny an African presence or possible African presence in a civilization or culture. The early 20th century Euro centric anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi coined the term "Mediterraneanoid" and classified Nubians, Ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians as such. As for the Shang what we actually have here is the evidence of Melanesians and Polynesians building a high civilization. As an African American who has knowledge of self I know how it feels to have another people claim your civilization, your  accomplishments and or simply deny your contributions to history. This being the case I feel it is just as wrong for Afro centrics to claim the Shang as Black African as it is for Euro centrics to claim the Shang to be some obscure “proto-mongoloid” peoples. The Shang were a Melanoid(Melanesian)and Polynesian peoples. Below I explain my theory on how much of this transpired in the ancient region of the Yellow River valley

 As man left out of Africa he developed new haplo groups but kept a similar phenotype(dark skin, lower jaw prothagnism, full lips, wide nose).

(Top Left: Shang Dynasty Artifacts)
(Left & Above Right: Andaman Islanders & New Guinean Man)

Man changed slightly and you can look at Australian Aborigines and Africans and see that difference. If humans originally had straight or slightly curled hair like Aborigines and developed woolly hair later in Africa or if Aborigines developed straight and slightly curly hair later is not known. When humans first reached Asia they undoubtedly looked similar to the Africoid but more than likely would be genetically classified as Australoid or Austronesian. Proof of an Australoid people in Asia has been verified by archaeological artifacts and modern Indian dna. The evidence of Australoid dna in South East Asia is visible in the darker complexions of Vietnamese,Thai,Taiwanese,Cambodian and other South East Asians Linguistics & DNA also points to Australoid dna in South East Asia and Austronesian dna in East Asia.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20110216.html

(Aboriginals 1st to settle East Asia)

 The link below is to a study that speaks to this.( it also speaks to the various migrations that lead to the assimilation of the Australoid type by the later Mongoloid type migration)  http://www.genetics.org/content/130/1/139.full.pdf%20. 

                                                                        Melanesian Child

The Australoid migrated as far as Japan and parts of Russia (the Ainu people who have Asian admixture and may also have Caucasian admixture)

Ainu                                                                              Aboriginal

Dravidian

Andamese


                                                                                                                   Dravidian

Id like to state that  research on my part does point to mongoloid peoples having occupied the Yellow river area before the Shang but their culture was more primitive and Shang possessed Chariot technology which more than likely enabled them to conquer the inhabitants they encountered.

It also does appear  from the artifacts the Shang did have epicanthic folds or (Asian eyes). The noses and lips do seem Africoid or say Australoid.

The Han type Asian is a product of Ice Age climatic changes. Asians simply did not spend as long in Ice Age conditions as Caucasoids so they didn't develop long noses to warm up air but they did develop smaller noses with smaller nostrils and they have lower jaw  regression (negative prothagnism )but not as much as Caucasians Another ice age hominid Neanderthal has extreme lower jaw  regression ie: negative prothagnism to the extent many regard Neanderthal skulls as "chinless' -

In the image below are Neanderthal skulls (top) compared to modern Caucasian skulls (bottom)

 Also pale skin may only be 5000 years old. - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1210056/White-Europeans-evolved-5-500-years-ago-food-habits-changed.html

 It is theorized that along with the dark ice age conditions skin grew pale due to the invention of farming. By eating farmed crops as a basis for diet humans took vitamin D out of their diet. Cereal crops have no vitamin D. Meat has some and Fish has a lot and these two were the primary sources of food for hunter gatherers. Once humans began farming in Northern climates this eliminated the Vitamin D from their diet and humans needed to process more via sunlight. Han type Chinese are almost as pale as Europeans. Again both are products of ice age climate change and adapting to living far North of the Equator were sunlight is minimized.The Han type haplo group is primarily the ydna haplo group O. This haplo group developed in Central Eurasia and migrated into Northern Asia developing along Siberia and  outwards into East Asia.

 The National Geographic project's "My genetic Journey "quotes:

"By the time haplogroup O ancestors arrived in China and East Asia, the last ice age was near its peak. Encroaching ice sheets and central Asia's enormous mountain ranges effectively corralled them in East Asia, and there they evolved in isolation over the millennia"  http://www.viethoc.org/temp/

This may be a reason Asians almost ubiquitously have epicanthic eye folds among other traits that are rare in other human populations.

Haplo group O is descendant from a population that reached Asia about 35k years ago. There was already a population there that reached east Asia via a different route about 50k years ago. This is 47k years before the Shang  and this population seems to have been absorbed by the population that came 15k years later. The Shang civilizations artifacts and structures appear to be laid smack on top of earlier, mongoloid peoples settlements as if they came as conquers. The Shang population more than likely had not changed in phenotype because this group although in Asia during the ice age they occupied an area free of glaciation(presumably on or near the east Asian coast) and still obtained large enough quantities of vitamin D for proper human body function(vitamin D keeps bones strong and helps women regulate folic acid crucial in child birth. Women could die with out the proper amount of vitamin D giving birth and children are born still born. This is one theory as to why humans developed lighter skin during the dark ice age conditions) so they had no need to develop lighter skin.

The Australoids in China just as the ones in India to the south developed early civilization or say proto-civilization before contact with the Han type. I say this because during this period the Han would have been living a Nomadic life style migrating throughout Asia before finally settling in the Yellow river area. Seeing that Australoids were the creators of the Indus Valley civilization(their text even speak of yogic positions and possibly are the roots to modern Hinduism) It is safe to assume they did the same in the Yellow river area. (were you have a water source, domestic animals and crops all rudiments of civilization.) Prehistoric Asia was the most hospitable environment for Neolithic man. Domestic animals and domestic grass/grains are indigenous to Eurasia/Middle East and spread to North Africa and other areas as humans migrated. Other Australoids live on Islands and continents with no domestic crops or animals, or the few native domestic crops they do farm are low in nutrition and require far more work to cultivate than wheat, barley, sorghum and other grass crops. With out a water source or domestic animals and crops civilization will not arise independently. This is why Island culture is tribal and even on continents like Australia the absence of domestic animals and crops halt the development of high civilization. Domestic crops allows a few farmers to feed a large population easily. This frees up people with in this population to become specialist such as architects, priest, scribes, astrologers and so on. With out domestication of animals and crops the majority of a population would have to spend the majority of time hunting and gathering. No time for some one to focus on developing a  script or alphabet or to plan out the construction of a temple or pyramid.

Thus the statement the original Chinese were Black or African  is only partially true. All mankind began in Africa and when man arrived in the area of China he was still dark skinned.  The Black Shang theory only speaks to the ruling dynasty that from archeology seem to be a conquering culture that came into the Yellow river valley area from near by. So as stated the Australoids and or Austronesian type was in East Asia at least 15k years before the group that would become the Han type Chinese arrived. One also must understand the Shang dynasty did not arise until 1675 BCE. This is more than 8000 years after the ice age ended and over 40k years after the 1st humans reached Asia. I plan to dig further on this theory but as it stands now the most concise non Euro, Afro or Chinese centric source ive found is from Plos Genetics Skeletal and dna studies that state there were two Shang dynasties, one Melanoid(as in Melanesian) and one of seemingly Polynesian stock. From what I gather this is the only source that sites actual study of Shang skeletal remains & not the Jaihu who occupied the area before them.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/annotation/listThread.action;jsessionid=2D0CE411277C5035176581703A91AFF2?root=7003
 

The 1st Cipher (an Introduction)

Some may know me from Yahoo Answers. Some may know me from my You tube commentary. Many know me as Hip-Hop Rapper and Bay Area pioneer Hugh EMC. Ive created this blog to address issues of anthropology,history,civilizations origins and the origins of mankind it self. On Yahoo Answers I've received email from question askers about certain topics dealing with the roots of civilization ,genetics & history. This is what prompted me in part to create this blog. I consider my self neither Afro nor Euro centric. I consider my self world centric and a scientific thinker. I do my best to look at matters of history & culture through an anthropological lens. I seek truthful non biased answers to questions of race and civilization. I do my best to support my claims with empirical evidence and in the case of an over abundance of circumstantial data i will state the particular claim is a strong theory. Euro centric thinkers will undoubtedly find me Afro centric. This is due to the fact many new discoveries have come forth revealing not only mankind's roots in Africa but the very roots of language,culture and civilization it self. Euro centrics have had a long history of masking and denying Africa's role in world culture and civilization and this mind state will prove hard to break in some.  Many Afro centrics will consider me brainwashed by Euro centric schools of study but this is untrue. Much of Afro centric claims are over reactions to extreme Euro centric racism so instead of stating something is a probable theory Afro centrics state claims as if they have all of the supporting evidence and this is an error. The way many Afro centrics state their claims only hurt African history over all. Ive listened to and  or read research from so many brilliant Afro centric academics only to find error after error. The errors are usually small but they hurt the over all validity of the theory put forth. In the coming months I will be re posting many of my YA Answers and commentary from other sites but I also will be posting new commentary and linking this blog with my new You tube site that also will be dealing with historical and anthropological issues. I look forward to dialogue with you all.

                              Ancient coins from North Africa & the Greek Isle of Lesbos