Why race and IQ studies are useless.

If it was that common, you wouldn't be limited to a couple websites. You're exaggerating.

So you're cool with Rhodesia and South Africa?

 

I know and the Africans are angry. I'm sure Jay, being the egalitarian he is, has already been gallivanting around the internet tarring the black xenophobes as racists with no right to the land that should be killed for their beliefs.

 

Is THAT what you think you are doing???

You're hilarious!

 

What do you think I am doing?

 

I showed that a Google Search for sterilizing Black people generated over 200,000 results. I'm not limited to a few websites it is all over the internet. While these comments represent the most hateful that racists can make the viewpoint is not uncommon. Enough of them are talking about it to show that it is a popular opinion in the movement. Again I'm not saying most White Nationalists believe in sterilization or genocide but a lot of them do and I expect more do than will actually admit it.

 

A Google Search asking the question "Should Black People be sterilized?" generated even more results!

About 388,000.

The Stormfront thread I cited is the top result followed by multiple threads on Topix.com with all kinds of titles related to the topic advocating the sterilization of Black people. Even if this is a minority opinion it is clearly not uncommon.

 

Should bananas be mandatory: About 651,000 results

 

What does that prove? Obviously if you post something generic you're going to get a lot of random results. The question "Should Black People be sterilized?" is very specific and it had a lot of results confirming the fact that White Nationalists seriously discuss this topic.

 

I've already stated what you're doing in this thread. The why of it is a bit of a mystery however.

 

There is no mystery. I made an argument in response to the OP which was relevant to discussion. Your comments were pointless.

 

You're propagandizing with junk science.

 

"White people are evil" About 14,400,000 results
"midget porn" About 6,950,000 results
"Cannibalism" About 9,900,000 results

 

No, that is what you and the other racists are doing. Why is it that my views are accepted by academia and yours are not?

What is your point?

 

If this is the case, then why does your argument always fall when I present sources from textbooks, etc? Your environmental theory of IQ differences rests on Nisbett's shoddy work, so it's not "accepted by academia," and you are grossly overinflating your knowledge base. A few emails doesn't equal academia, especially when one of them oversteps his training (Graves) and the other's conclusions and methods have been shot down (Nisbett).

But feel free to keep spinning.

You're making much ado about nothing which is what you commonly do.

Far more people are into midget porn than think about sterilizing black people. That doesn't seem to have clicked with you yet.

And you clearly think the "sterilizing black people" results were all Googled by evil white people wanting to do it, and nobody else.

 

Really. Extremely selective? Is that why I see scores of elderly Asians where I live, all of them on social services, none of them speaking English? There isn't a single Asian I have met, and I worked with many of them in medical labs, that I couldn't run circles around intellectually, academically. Some of the Asians I worked with were 'doctors' and Med Techs from the Philippines. They were working in the lab as an unlicensed lab techs because they couldn't pass the AMA exam. They whined all day long about how unfair it was that in the US such stringent requirements are in place for those practicing and working in licensed medical fields. As far as being motivated, they did only what they had to do to get by, and they weren't very good at what they did. What is worse is they drove down the wages of licensed laboratory workers.

 

Those above 130 are considered as gifted and you're pretty close to that.

 

An online IQ test showed that my IQ score was around 130 and we are smarter than 98% of the population. The white average IQ is 99 in Britain and it's slightly lower in Eastern and Southern Europe (90-95). An IQ score of 128 is "superior" rather than "above average".

 

The IQ of Eastern Europe can expect to climb, considering that Soviet induced poverty caused a stunted IQ.

I'd point to the East German IQ of 95 vs the West German IQ of 103 going back to the late Soviet era.

I'd also point to the Polish American IQ recorded which jumped from 91 in the 1920's to 109 by the 1970's.

Although back in the 1920's a lot of Polish were illiterate, unlike current former Soviet bloc people.

So, I doubt the IQ will jump that much, even so it seems nations in Eastern Europe could see strong Flynn effect increases in IQ scores.

 

What is your explanation for the low IQ scores, and PISA scores of Qatar, which is an very rich Muslim Arab country?

While, I certainly do believe IQ, and PISA scores can be impacted by environment.

It's hard to take egalitarianism seriously when some rich countries still lag behind in IQ scores, and PISA scores.

 

They don't. You keep making arguments about the high heritability of IQ that do not directly address the cause of group differences in IQ. You have never refuted my arguments on this subject.

For instance you have refused to respond to this post.

That post was written about 2 years ago, Empress. You ducked a response on Youtube and you are ducking now.

Again the environmental model for the cause of group differences in IQ is taught in mainstream academia in classes on Differential Psychology. I learned about it in Psychology 101.

The American Psychological Association gave a statement defending this position.

Nisbett and his colleagues, all first-rate scholars, wrote an article which was basically an update of what the APA said in 1995.

I showed you a lecture featuring a Yale Professor making the same points I was making to you two years ago on Youtube (starts around 46:50).

[video=youtube;piDznzrNymE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piDznzrNymE[/video]

If you truly took Psychology classes in college and learned about the heritability of IQ you would know that what Nisbett argues is taught in Differential Psychology and hereditarianism is not. You would know this. The fact that you don't means you are either lying about your academic background or you flunked the course and didn't get far enough to learn about this. Graves' arguments are based on basic principles of experimental quantitative genetics. He did not overstep his training. He critiqued the genetic arguments of psychometricians and exposed them as pseudoscience.

Nisbett was not shot down. One critical review does not represent a consensus. Lee failed to refute Nisbett's best arguments and when I finish the book I will demonstrate that in my thread.

You're attacking a strawman. My point was that a lot of White Nationalists consider sterilization and genocide as legitimate political options. I'm not surprised that more people think about midget porn than sterilizing Black people. Racist social policies are a more obscure topic than porn of any kind. Obviously not every result is going to feature a racist talking about sterilizing Black people but many will and you can find exact quotes expressing these ideas on some of the most popular websites.

 

No, I did address it.

1) I have said repeatedly that your lack of basic understanding on the IQ subject and the results of decades of international twin studies betray that you have never taken 5 minutes of psychology in your life in a college environment, and
2) You're again demanding I defend Rushton's work when I've scarcely read it and have specifically said a number of times I am not here to advocate for.
3) You post a single article from 1995 atop your previous article from 2006 and tell me that my textbook from 2012 is "outdated" and thus worthless and I need to get with the program and post new, relevant stuff. You need to stop moving the goalposts and inventing excuses to dismiss scientifically valid sources that you cannot rebut.
4) Humans aren't genetically identical plants and Lewontin's little plant study didn't prove anything new.
5) You repeatedly grossly overestimate the environment's impact on adult IQ in spite of your claim of having a background in taking college psychology courses.
6) You use sources to "debunk" me which contain things I've already asserted, while you deny I said them, such as your use of a source to debunk a heredity-only idea of IQ difference when I never made that claim to begin with.

Now that I have repeated myself on this issue, feel free to address Nisbett if you want to keep citing him. All you're doing here is attempting ad hominem tu quoque smoke screen for your failures in defending your poor source materials.

If you have a hard time finding a response from me to a specific post of yours, it's probably because you had it flagged and deleted in one of your uncontrolled rages. A number of such of my posts on this forum have been removed by mods, and those posts contained multiple specific citations to psychology textbooks I have used in class or otherwise downloaded from the internet. So at least be honest and admit that a post responding to any given thing by you not being present here at the moment isn't automatically due to my "ducking" out your question. You have flagged post after post after post of mine on this forum and had many of them removed. As such, don't complain that you can't readily find answers to old questions you asked me and then launch into a conspiracy theory that I have been ducking your academic majesty.

Yet you don't mention a single textbook but rather press releases. Let's repeat: A large portion of your position on IQ differences rests on overestimating the environmental impact on IQ. In fact, I don't recall your having cited a single textbook, anywhere. Rather, your source materials are all either books by individuals or the results of Google web searches. I noticed that and it has meaning.

If they were first-rate, Nisbett would have been able to defend a detailed critique of the 2009 demolition by Lee of his work. That you ignore this and pretend that he is "first-rate" is beyond Orwellian and goes into the arena of intent to deceive.

Show me one college textbook that touches on Nisbett and his ideas because I've never been issued one and have never seen one in browsing psychology textbooks by authors other than I used in my own classes.

Again, you're trying ad hominem tu quoque and smoke screen deflections here --- because you can't defend Nisbett's work.

He was shot down in flames by a critic who made a point-by-point account of his poor methods and conclusions. So much so that Nisbett was left speechless even years later when you contacted him by email about it. Nisbett is not going to admit fault here, even if he indirectly admits it by his inability to defend his work because doing so would not only damage his academic reputation but would also mean he can't make more money selling books. If you wish to defend yourself here per appeals to "consensus," then you just threw in the towel for your whole environmental IQ theory because not a single textbook I've ever seen presents Nisbett's ideas as accepted consensus in the field. Oops.

You cited Google searches to prove the allegedly prolific numbers of evil white nationalists hoping to commit genocide of blacks and assumed that the totality of the search numbers on the topic was done by white racists, and not say, paranoid black people wondering if white people are trying to sterilize them.

And the idea is so unpopular and fringe that people are far more interested in midget porn.

Thus, the straw man was yours.

 

You didn't respond to my argument. There's no response to you on Youtube and when I posted it here you outright refused to reply. Lewontin's arguments are sound genetic reasoning. Is your best argument that humans are not plants? You don't understand quantitative genetics.

I don't need to cite textbooks to make my point that racial gaps in IQ are caused by the environment. This information is widely available on the internet.

Nisbett doesn't have to respond to every critic. He was dismissive of Lee because Lee is not a well known scholar and his work is peer-reviewed. Do you know anything about Nisbett? He is a distinguished professor of Psychology whose book according to Google Scholar has hundreds of citations.

[video=youtube;RnCzHC_EM18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnCzHC_EM18[/video]

You couldn't have done any serious research. This wasn't hard to find.....

So there you go, a college textbook citing Nisbett's recent study showing the reduction of the Black-White IQ gap.

Your crusade to discredit Nisbett is really pathetic and you are attacking a strawman about "environmental theory of IQ."

What I have been debating on this message board is the cause of racial IQ gaps not the heritability of IQ.

I never assumed the totality of the searches was from White Nationalists. Clearly many of them are. The reason the idea is unpopular and fringe is because racist ideology is only taken seriously by far-right lunatics. My point of the Google Search was to show that many people in racist circles are talking about exterminating Blacks through sterilization and genocide and you can find direct quotes to these ideas on message boards such as Stormfront and VNN.

 

I responded here yet again and you just now didn't answer. Considering your appeal to novelty regarding dismissing my textbook from 2012, why are you citing stuff from Lewontin that goes back to the early 1970s.?

Maybe I didn't see your post on YouTube, I don't recall. I'm not digging. I just told you that your flagging campaign removed many of my posts here, and you ignore it and claim "I refused to reply." That is an assertion you cannot substantiate. And you're ignoring I just reiterated my reply.

And the Lee response to Nisbett touched on the differential psychology aspect and you haven't responded to that, either. It's on page 1 of his review. You did see that before, right? Or have you avoided reading that paper all this time?

Your inability to quote textbooks when you have claimed to take classes is part of what tells me you never took classes. Your entire exposure is the internet and a few books by individuals. You took ZERO classes in college on this topic, if you've ever been to college at all.

He needs to respond to scholarly criticisms of his works and assertions that underlie his entire body of work. You're making excuses for Nisbett again. I know this about Nisbett, and it's all I have to know: He was debunked, he hides from it, and keeps on anyway. Just like you.

Rushton could muster a response to critical reviews of his papers, but somehow Nisbett can't. Poor thing.

You claim there were many, you present one, after Googling. Not a book you own or have ever used in college.

Congrats. Too bad it doesn't address that the Nisbett study that was cited was also demolished by critics, but at least it's a start. Sad to see we have at least one textbook author who took Nisbett's work as valid on face value and passed that misinformation on to this students.

I have no crusade here. You do. You keep ignoring that Nisbett's work is shoddy, his methods and conclusions questionable and have been shown as such by multiple critics, and in spite of that you continue on, repeatedly, month after month citing Nisbett as valid while ducking out of any discussion of his credibility.

Oddly, you can invest the time to howl at me about it but can't take much less time to defend Nisbett's work. I wonder why that is?

The straw man is yours because of your having accused me of positing that IQ differences are all genetic. There is no such thing.

Clearly many are? Based on what? You cited the search tally as evidence for claims you were making regarding white supremacists trying to sterilize blacks. Why backpedal? Those message boards are fringe.

 

A study showed similar racist views of Blacks between Millennials, and Generation X.

However Millennials are more likely to think Blacks aren't as smart.

This is likely being many Millennials like myself grew up with the internet at our fingertips, where information about the low Black IQ is readily available to us.

 

You mean Lewontin's fallacy, which has received heavy criticism?