I discovered a link that stated that Charles Murray was invited to speak at a college about race and intelligence. Joseph Graves was also invited. You can see the details in the link below. http://williamsrecord.com/2016/03/16/ul-invites-charles-murray-to-deliver-speech-at-the-college/ I asked Graves about the debate and whether there was video. This is his reply: So like Rushton it seems that Charles Murray also avoided Graves.
Murray has a PhD in politics, Graves a PhD in biology that is why. He's obviously not going to do well in a debate against a scientist. Also note "hereditarians" in general have no background in genetics or biology. They're usually psychologists (Rushton, Lynn etc.) or have credentials in economics/politics.
True. Of course racists will say that The Bell Curve is a valid scientific book while ignoring the fact that one of its co-authors is not even a scientist.
Graves may have an affirmative action PhD but his arguments are so laughable as to be not worth bothering with. Exhibit A) Claiming that falsifying an evolutionary theory which explains variation eliminates the variation, then failing to falsify the theory, making an authority argument and quoting the opposite of the authorities. Exhibit B) Applying Wright's 0.25 Fst large differentiation between subspecies statistic to single IQ genes, claiming that means they have no effect. Exhibit C) When asked by Rushton why adopted Native Americans were taciturn while Negroes talkative as noted by Galton, he answered by saying Darwin noted the opposite, when he noted the same. The man is a clown.
Compare Lynn's calculated mean IQ for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, to their actual means: Wicherts et al. 2010. "Hereditarians" are pseudo-scientists who manipulate data. Graves doesn't need to show this when it has already been demonstrated.
But let's say Rushton and Lynn are correct - what use are their theories? This is a political forum after all. Lynn is supposedly concerned with third world mass immigration into European countries: "I am deeply pessimistic about the future of the European peoples because mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities in the United States and westernmost Europe during the present century. I think this will mean the destruction of European civilization in these countries." (source) How is Lynn's theory going to save Europeans? It isn't. Lynn's views actually demonise anti-immigration, by associating it with cranky theories and racism e.g. "blacks have small brains but large penises" etc. The vast majority of people see Lynn as a weirdo and racist like Rushton.
Why do you insist on slandering Graves? His educational background was not attained through Affirmative Action and the statement is nothing more than a racist snipe. Graves did falsify Rushton's evolutionary theory. No biologist has ever come to Rushton's defense critiquing Graves and a fellow expert on Life History Evolution says his critique is valid: By the way Graves recommended two books on evolutionary biology to me. Once I buy them and finish them I will make a new thread re-evaluating Graves' arguments against Rushton so if you want to have the debate in the future we can. I also just bought Chris Stringer's book Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth. Once I finish that I will probably update this thread with new arguments. Ofcourse first I will read Nisbett's book. What exactly was wrong with that method? I will admit that Graves seems to have misspoken in that instance because Darwin did make the same observations of temperament but Graves was also referencing different arguments by Darwin that are not consistent with Galton's views on human nature.
I emailed Dr. Murray about this yesterday and he gave me permission to post his correspondence with the individual at the school. Why do you, EgalitarianJay and Graves have to lie? Please, EgalitarianJay, give me the citation in the book the proves yours and Graves' point. So I will post Dr. Murrays emails and then summarize the reply as he asked me to: The student then asked if Dr. Murray will be free March 8 or 9. Dr. Murray responds: The student responds that they booked a room for 7:30 and asked if Dr. Murray would like a tour of the school and dinner at 5:30. Dr. Murray responds: The student then asks Dr. Murray if everything is good to go on March 9. Dr Murray responds: The student responds to try the Williams Inn. Dr. Murray responds: The student then responds to Dr. Murray saying that the students of the debate union invited Dr. Graves to speak. He was wondering if Dr. Murray would debate Dr. Graves or attend his event as an exchange of ideas. Dr. Murray responds: The student then responds that Dr. Graves does works on evolutonary genetics and race at UNC Greensboro. He also said how Dr. Graves argues against the biological reality of race. Dr Murray responds: The student then responds asking how an early or late dinner would work and when he would be arriving. Dr. Murray responds: Dr. Murray then clarifies his last email: The student responds that he's excited to meet Dr. Murray and says he'd like to ask him some questions. He then says he should be able to arrange that the whole thing be recorded. Dr. Murray then responds: The student responds that many of the students, including the one who invited Dr. Graves, only wanted him to talk as a counter to Dr. Murray. He told the other students they would hold separate events back to back. Dr. Murray responds: So, EgalitarianJay, you can see that Graves' statement about the events were false. I would also like you to show me the citation in The Bell Curve that shows that Dr.Murray and Dr. Hernnstein weren't agnostic on the black-white IQ gap. Next time before you try to defame someone, get their side of the story as well.
I'm going to email Graves again for clarification on this issue. It's good that we can get both sides of the story. As for the citation I have the book The Bell Curve in PDF format on my computer. This is the comment that Murray is no doubt referencing: To me it seems clear that the authors of The Bell Curve believe that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ they simply aren't sure ("agnostic") on the role that genes and environment play. This would support Dr. Graves contention that they do in fact advocate a genetic component to racial differences in IQ, they simply don't comment on how strong a role genetics plays. As for Murray's email exchange with you taken at face value I get the impression that Murray agreed to a debate but with certain stipulations but when Graves' sponsors stated that this wasn't what they had in mind he decided not to be involved with Graves at all. To Graves this may have seemed like he reneged but maybe there was some miscommunication.
It's good to see what a liar Graves is in claiming Murray supported a 'primary genetic causality' in his book when his actual writing from the book nowhere made such a claim.
I can't find any text where the authors of The Bell Curve outright say that genetic differences are the primary cause of racial differences in IQ. But their book does seem to favor a genetic component at the very least.
That says it all. I've read the book multiple times. Not one time in the book did they say, definitively, that race differences in IQ are genetically determined. The most they did say was that on the individual level that it was, at the least, 60 percent heritable. I believe there was miscommunication. I don't think Dr. Murray would reneg like that.
This. Page 311 is clear on Hernnstein and Murray's view on the matter of the black and white IQ gap. I don't know why Graves has to attempt to spin things.
There can't be debates about anything on any college campus. Students will just shout down speakers and raid the microphone. Free speech is not possible anymore on college campuses.
Graves may have been wrong to say that Murray insists on a primary genetic cause to racial differences in IQ although I can understand how he might have gotten this impression considering that The Bell Curve relies heavily on the research of Jensen and Rushton to make its case that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. Rushton and Jensen themselves advocated a 0.80 (80% vs. 20%) heritability of the of the Black-White IQ gap. Even though Murray says his view is agnostic on the roles that genes and environment play the book relies on scholars who insist on a strong genetic component. If Murray is serious about a video debate with Graves that would be recorded and put on Youtube I would like to see that. Can you email Murray for comment on whether or not he is still open to this debate?
Well, to be fair, Rushton and Jensen didn't say that B-W IQ gap was 80 percent heritable and 20 percent environmental until their 2005 paper on 30 years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. In my opinion, they were agnostic and gave ample time to both sides of the debate. Sure I can email him and ask him that.
Also, what's Graves's view on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study? Why do East Asians, Native Americans, Southeast Asians, and Arctic natives have a higher visuospatial IQ than verbal IQ--and why is it the opposite for Europeans and Ashkenazim?
Much of data extrapolated in such studies is highly subjective and has few controls and filters to take into account various other multiple factors of influence.
Explain, please. The MTRAS is one of the best studies on this subject. It showed that the amount of African ancestry of the students predicted their mean IQ and academic achievement scores. At age 17, those with two black biological parents had lower mean IQ and academic achievement than did those with one white and one black parent and those with two white biological parents (Rushton and Jensen, 2005). Jensen (199 says it also showed that age of adoption doesn't influence childhood IQ scores. In the longitudinal follow-up, there were 265 subjects. What other multiple factors of influence are you talking about?
I haven't seen Graves talk about that study in print but he did address it briefly in his debate with Rushton: (Starts at 1:33:55) [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE#t=01h33m55s[/video] Do you have a source showing that all of these groups have higher VisuoSpatial IQ than White Europeans and Ashkenazi Jews? Nisbett claims based on his research that differences in cognitive styles and learning strategies that are a product of cultural differences are the reason for these differences. Different cultures think differently. I need to read over the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study myself but Nisbett listed several weaknesses of the study some of which were recognized by the authors themselves.
