Why don't race realist ever come up with solutions?

You seem to be playing both ends against the middle. On the one hand, you say:

And on the other:

So you're saying that it's been too long for differences in population intelligence (that may have occurred due to the explorers being smarter in the first place, as evidenced by their curiosity and willingness to take calculated risks) to "stick", but that's it's not long enough for any substantial evolutionary change to have happened? How do you square that?

No one said that only the ones who left Africa were the smart ones. Just that the ones who left were probably above average intelligence, judging from their tendencies to be explorers in the first place. Of course ALL of the smart people didn't leave. Just like no one is saying that there are no smart people in Africa now. It's that bell curve distribution thing.

No one said high intelligence wasn't important in Africa. But when traveling in unknown lands, it is more important, and you are more likely to die without it. Had mankind first emerged in America, then leaving America would require greater intelligence to successfully adapt to new climates, discover which plants are safe and edible, the tendencies of the local game, etc. instead of relying on knowledge built up over many generations.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between intelligence or no intelligence. There are, of course, varying degrees.

We are not comparing humans to animals here, we are comparing them to other humans.

 

You made the argument that small villages where everyone is closely related would probably be similar in intelligence because of their genetic relatedness therefore it is understandable for populations to be similar in intelligence due to genetic relatedness. Were you talking about early human populations or modern populations? If you're talking about early populations then there were far less humans around and therefore less genetic diversity. Populations living today have a great deal of genetic diversity because mutations have occurred over time and populations have grown substantially. So even people in some villages today have many ancestors contributing to their genetic makeup for many generations over tens of thousands of years.

That was the point I was making but I may not be clear on what you were actually talking about.

In terms of human intelligence changing dramatically since humans left Africa (about 100,000 years ago) that is actually a relatively short period based on evolutionary time scales. That's plenty of time for populations to grow and there to be a lot of genetic diversity but a short time for major changes to occur differentiating populations. In order for human populations to be very different genetically they would have to be isolated for many hundreds of thousands of years. Instead the genetic variation between populations is very small compared to the difference within populations (about 85% within vs. 15% between).

That 15% is plenty for small genetic changes that impact traits controlled by the expression of a few genes but unlikely to affect a polygenic trait like intelligence controlled by the expression of many genes.

There's no reason to assume that humans who migrated out of Africa were on average more curious and intelligent than humans who stayed and migrated within Africa. The humans who migrated to Europe and Asia more than likely did so simply because of geographic proximity to those continents and left because they were following wild animals to hunt.

I didn't say that only the smart ones left Africa. I know what you are saying. You are saying that the ones who left Africa on average possessed special qualities that influenced their behavior. They were more adventurous, more curious and there were more people with leadership ability in their tribes that motivated them to leave and seek new horizons.

I get what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that no, there's no reason to believe that. More than likely they simply decided to migrate to other regions because there was land to migrate to and they happened to be near it.

Let me put it this way....

The archeological record indicates that the earliest humans lived around Ethiopia and Kenya. Humans migrated in different directions. The ones that decided to go east crossed in to Eurasia, not because there was anything especially interesting about the region but because it was there, the animals were traveling and they followed them. Other early humans who traveled west and south simply ended up in other parts of Africa. They were all explorers. Over time they underwent changes that better suited their environments which is why people look different today. Some things changed. Most things stayed the same. The early humans already possessed the intelligence to do what humans can do today so there was no need for significant changes once they crossed in to other regions.

The problem with your line of argument is that you are assuming that these humans needed to get smarter in order to learn how to survive in new environments whereas I am telling you that they were already intelligent enough to learn how to survive in new regions within a relatively short time period.

What you are proposing is that humans in Africa who already knew how to hunt, make tools, find shelter etc. didn't possess the intelligence to survive in Europe or Asia because of the climate and had to wait for evolution to make them smarter so that they would possess these abilities. Evolution takes time and if that were the case, if the first humans to migrate in to Europe and Asia were so stupid that they couldn't figure out how to survive the winter or any other challenges then they would have died within a very short time period probably within their life time and I don't mean some of them I mean all them.

When you think about it logically the idea is so absurd that it is mind-boggling how any reasonably intelligent person could fall for it. If a population generally does not possess basic survival skills then they will die before they have time to figure out how to live in their new environment. Now some people living in the world today don't have the survival skills of their ancestors because they live in an environment where they don't need them and those people really would die within a few weeks. Jared Diamond observed himself that with all of his education in a Western society that he would be completely lost if he had to live in a jungle or rain forest like some of the people living a tribal lifestyle today. His observation of these cultures is the reason why he found the idea that these people didn't possess normal intelligence was sheer nonsense and there must be another explanation for differences in cultural development between human populations (like different cultures developing due to differences in geography, resources and circumstances).

The only way early human populations could have possibly survived the conditions of other continents is if they already had the survival skills to adapt quickly. Your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of human ability and survival strategies. Mine is based on research and in this case largely based on research in the fields of anthropology and archeology. All of this was addressed in the articles I posted.

No. Let me simplify this....

Skin color: This is a trait that varies due to exposure to UV rays from the sun. Different skin colors are necessary in different environments.

Intelligence: This is a trait we all need in order to survive and sustain the societies we live in. This trait is important wherever we go so it doesn't need to change from place to place (i.e it has equal survival value).

My point about humans vs. animals is that we are much smarter than them for a reason. Because of our evolutionary history. There were evolutionary pressures in Africa that demanded that we evolve in to anatomically modern humans. How much intelligence do you think the first modern humans possessed? What do you think humans in Africa today can't do that humans elsewhere can do?

What you seem to be suggesting is that before humans left Africa they had a limited level of intelligence that improved significantly once they migrated to other continents. So what could they not do then that humans today that supposedly evolved higher intelligence can do now?

My position is that humans in Africa already had the genetic potential for intelligence that we see in the world today. They become behaviorally modern in Africa and there was no reason for their intelligence to change drastically in other regions. This isn't just my say-so either this is a position backed up by research from experts in various relevant fields.

What are your primary sources? I've shared some of mine.

 

By ALL indications here, and by ALL indications all over the internet when I've searched the topic in general, your life IS Race discussions.
You are probably -and easily- the most prolific Race (and nothing but) poster on the internet. And I believe by your own previous "13 year" admission.
OTOH, most of my posts are Political (these are generally political boards), general science, economics, Europe, Middle East, etc
You post RACE 24/7/365.

I've already posted the most esteemed IQ professor in the country.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/a-reality-check-on-race-and-iq.479911/[/B]
IQ expert Linda Gottfredson (professor emeritus of educational psychology, University of Delaware and co-director of the Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society)
You Dishonestly Whined and Cried. "RRRRACIST"
Amazing/Disgusting how you could forget.

I've also posted perhaps the most Esteemed Evolution/Genetics/Speciation expert: Jerry Coyne.

I've also posted co-Nobel winner for Discovering DNA, James Watson.

I've posted foremost experts, you endlessly post the self-interested 'House Scientist' at North Carolina A&T.
(I bet they have a good marching band tho)

You got Graves til the grave.
And again, I (Bering Strait) GUTTED Graves here, about the 12th post down, to NO Response from you
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...e-races-that-differ-in-mental-traits/?page=14
Everyone else please read the string.
For Ejay at least, they're ALL the same: Graves, Graves Reposts, even in the same string of the same boobtubes/excerpts

No, YOU didn't respond, you link dumped.
Your link does not exculpate the cheating Gould did.
And what was that? ONE of his buddies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Criticism_2

In a review of The Mismeasure of Man, Bernard Davis, professor of microbiology at Harvard Medical School, said that Gould erected a straw man argument based upon incorrectly defined key terms—specifically reification—which Gould furthered with a "highly selective" presentation of statistical data, all motivated more by politics than by science.[21] ...

In his review, psychologist John B. Carroll said that Gould did not understand "the nature and purpose" of factor analysis.[/B][24]

Statistician David J. Bartholomew, of the London School of Economics, said that Gould erred in his use of factor analysis, irrelevantly concentrated upon the fallacy of reification (abstract as concrete), and ignored the contemporary scientific consensus about the existence of the psychometric g.[/B][25]

Reviewing the book, Stephen F. Blinkhorn, a senior lecturer in psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, wrote that The Mismeasure of Man was "a Masterpiece of Propaganda" that selectively juxtaposed data to further a political agenda.26

Psychologist Lloyd Humphreys, then editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Psychology and Psychological Bulletin, wrote that The Mismeasure of Man was "science fiction" and "Political Propaganda", and that Gould had misrepresented the views of Alfred Binet, Godfrey Thomson, and Lewis Terman.[27]

In his review, psychologist Franz Samelson wrote that Gould was wrong in asserting that the psychometric results of the intelligence tests administered to soldier-recruits by the U.S. Army contributed to the legislation of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924.[28] In their study of the Congressional Record and committee hearings related to the Immigration Act, Mark Snyderman and Richard J. Herrnstein reported that "the [intelligence] testing community did not generally view its findings as favoring restrictive immigration policies like those in the 1924 Act, and Congress took virtually no notice of intelligence testing."[29]

Psychologist David P. Barash wrote that Gould unfairly groups sociobiology with "racist eugenics and misguided Social Darwinism."[30]

Responses by subjects of the book

In his review of The Mismeasure of Man, Arthur Jensen, a University of California (Berkeley) educational psychologist whom Gould much criticized in the book, wrote that Gould used straw man arguments to advance his opinions, misrepresented other scientists, and propounded a political agenda. According to Jensen, the book was "a patent example" of the bias that political ideology imposes upon science—the very thing that Gould sought to portray in the book. Jensen also criticized Gould for concentrating on long-disproven arguments (noting that 71% of the book's references preceded 1950), rather than addressing "anything currently regarded as important by scientists in the relevant fields", suggesting that drawing conclusions from early human intelligence research is like condemning the contemporary automobile industry based upon the mechanical performance of the Ford Model T.[31]

Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve (1994), said that his views about the distribution of human intelligence, among the races and the ethnic groups who compose the U.S. population, were Misrepresented in The Mismeasure of Man.[32]

Psychologist Hans Eysenck wrote that The Mismeasure of Man is a book that presents "a paleontologist's Distorted view of what psychologists think, Untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science."[33]

Responses to the second edition (1996)

Arthur Jensen and Bernard Davis argued that if the g factor (general intelligence factor) were replaced with a model that tested several types of intelligence, it would change results less than one might expect. Therefore, according to Jensen and Davis, the results of standardized tests of cognitive ability would continue to correlate with the results of other such standardized tests, and that the intellectual achievement gap between black and white people would remain.[31]

Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton accused Gould of "scholarly malfeasance"[/b]misrepresenting and for ignoring contemporary scientific research pertinent to the subject of his book, and for attacking dead hypotheses and methods of research. He faulted The Mismeasure of Man because it did not mention the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies that showed the existence of statistical correlations among brain-size, IQ, and the g factor, despite Rushton having sent copies of the MRI studies to Gould.
Rushton further criticized the book for the absence of the results of five studies of twins reared apart corroborating the findings of Cyril Burt—the contemporary average was 0.75 compared to the average of 0.77 reported by Burt.[34]

James R. Flynn, a researcher critical of racial theories of intelligence, repeated the arguments of Arthur Jensen about the second edition of The Mismeasure of Man. Flynn wrote that "Gould's book EVADES all of Jensen's best arguments for a genetic component in the black–white IQ gap, by positing that they are dependent on the concept of g as a general intelligence factor. Therefore, Gould believes that if he can discredit g no more need be said. This is manifestly False. Jensen’s arguments would bite no matter whether blacks suffered from a score deficit on one or ten or one hundred factors."[35]

According to psychologist Ian Deary, Gould's claim that there is no relation between Brain Size and IQ is Outdated.
Furthermore, he reported that Gould Refused to Correct this in new editions of the book, even though newly available data were brought to his attention by several researchers.[36]....​

Not yet in general, but it Opposes your pure environmental argument. However Brain Size is one of the aids to IQ found. And Brain size IS Asian>Euro>African.

Yes, you got Porked again.
A shame We can't "come up with solutions" to help you out.

 

Taxonomy26 has constructed the false narrative that my only contribution to Race & IQ discussion is citing the research or emails of Joseph Graves. Here is a list of the actual sources and scholars I have referenced in this discussion.

Sources:

1) Intelligence, Race, and Genetics American Psychologist Vol. 60, No. 1, 46–59 (2005)

2) What a tangled web he weaves: Race, Reproductive Strategies and Rushton's Life History Theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154 (2002)

3) HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

4) Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92

5) Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86, 2013

6) An Anthropological Perspective on "Race" and Intelligence: The Non-Clinal Nature of Human Cognitive Capabilities Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 55, No. 2, 3 JAR Distinguished Lectures (Summer, 1999), pp. 245-264

7) Demystifying G - Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor by Ken Richardson

8. The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea Chapter 10. The Pioneer Fund in the Twenty-First Century p. 264-265

9) Remeasuring man EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 16:3, 166–178 (2014)

10) How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume 42 , Number 1, February 2001

11) Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 104–106

12) Brain Size, Cranial Morphology, Climate, and Time Machines CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY V01. 25, NO 3, June 1984


Scholars:

1) C Loring Brace

2) Ken Richardson

3) David Reznick

4) Robert Sussman

5) Stephen C. Stearns

6) Derek A. Roff

7) Fred Weizmann

8. William H. Masters

9) Virginia E. Johnson

10) Melville J. Herskovits

11) Phillip V. Tobias

12) Kenneth L. Beals

13) Courtland L. Smith

14) Stephen M. Dodd

15) Marvin Zuckerman

16) Nathan Brody

17) Cornelius H. Vanderwolf

18. Stephen Jay Gould

19) Joseph L Graves

20) Michael Weisberg

21) Carl Bergmann

22) Janet Monge

23) Leonard Lieberman

24) Theodosius Dobzhansky

25) Ashley Montagu

26) Fatimah Jackson

27) Jelte Wicherts

28. Conor Dolan

29) Timothy Z Keith

30) Matthew Robert Reynolds

31) Puja G. Patel

32) Kristen P. Ridley

33) Joel Vandersluis

34) Jason Lewis

35) Henrik Kaessmann

36) Scott MacEachern

37) Robert Sternberg

38. Elena L. Grigorenko

39) Kenneth K. Kidd

40) Richard Nisbett

That's 12 sources and 40 scholars that I have cited within the last 2 pages alone. Claiming that I only cite Graves is a lie. You ignored the bulk of this research and I replied to several of the sources you cited.

As for your latest post, Linda Gottefredson is not the foremost expert on IQ research. Provide a credible source that says so. She is a Pioneer Fund Grantee and yes she is a racist. James Watson has done no original research on Race & IQ. If you watch his interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr. you'll see that he couldn't defend his views. He actually declined an interview with Rageh Omaar, which is mentioned in the documentary Race: Science's Last Taboo which I posted in a previous post. Watson declined because by his own admission his views were based entirely on reading a book by Richard Lynn, another racist psychologist.

What original research has Jerry Coyne done on this subject that you feel is relevant to this discussion?

Name-dropping scholars and referencing sources with something relevant to contribute are two different things.

Your quote of Wikipedia is useless and once again shows the limits of your actual knowledge on this topic from research you have done on your own.

You didn't provide any of the following:

1) Books you have read on the subject that support your position.

2) Videos of any respect scientists who have given lectures in an academic setting on the subject.

3) Email conversations between yourself and a respected scientist on the subject that supports your position.

You're not debating in good faith. You are using dishonest debate tactics to create the illusion that you are winning the debate when all your posts amount to is showboating. You're all flash and no substance.

Is this really the best you can do? Man up and provide the information requested of you or throw in the towel.

 

Look at the above NON-responsive/Non-quoting post!
Ejay got GUTTED.
1. He said
My life doesn't revolve around Race & IQ discussion...
But In fact, it does.
Put up a post any time of day/night and it will be answered quickly by Ejay. Probably simultaneously on several; boards with the same Uncle Joe Graves excerpt letter.
THAT is what he does: an admitted Race poster. (or 'ist'?)

2. Then he challenged me to put up a single college professor on Race and IQ!
I not only had put up one, I had started a String with it, he participated/Whined "Racist" in, by thee foremost IQ researcher prof.

3. Then it was on to Gould where he had put up one supporter.
I DESTROYED 'Mismeasure' with 14 esteemed reviewers.

So nowwwww... he puts up long list in an attempt to Bury his Destruction and Spamming of Graves in every string, and most pages he posts on.
The list must be contained in the UNexcerpted Link DUMP he made to FifthofNovember, that contained 5 Boobtubes and 5 studies, which he deconstructed for the purpose off making his DEFLECTION post look substantial.

Then he makes a goofy/fallacious challenge that I should put up my past reading list, letters, etc, INSTEAD of being able to debate me.
How'd that work for you in my last?
NOT.
You can study til you're blue in the face if you have an incurable bias and you'll end up like... You.
Citing Graves and Suzuki-Rushton, etc, doesn't trump logic.
Graves is an Idiot I already destroyed (see my last for link) and you were unable to refute.

If one has common sense and a good IQ, one can quickly spot anyone's premise or deduction errors, even with lesser background.
And if someone is denying Race exists, it's Easy to find them/you know it's there.
ie,
4. It's like Ejay trying to convince FifthofNovember not to believe his 'lying eyes' or common sense, that more than melanin/just cursory physical differences evolved.
(even dropping size for now) Head/skull/nose/eye shape is one of the thing that even physically separates races.... um.. but not whats in it?
No adaptation of the mind despite different needs. Cold, Winter, food storage, high density agriculture, trade, weights and measures, architecture, banking, etc.
Sure! no mental difference between that and surviving in Africa.
Of course, Ejay's Goofy reasoning would work for saying Chimps, Gorillas, or antelope, for that matter, are just as smart as us because they have no more need for intelligence than humans in the same environment.
Right?
How long a biblio does one need to bust that idiocy?

Africans in good measure still live in Huts ala 50,000 years ago, and would be routinely decimated by (AIDS/Ebola) were it not for 'White' medicine that's evolutionarily millennia (at least) ahead of/above them.
Didn't they have "same" IQ demand to wipe out disease?

Ethiopea has 14 large/98% unharnessed rivers/huge supply, but is oft parched by drought.
Where were/ARE Africa's Roman aqueducts of 2000 years ago? written language? Chinese astronomy/Wall? The Wheel?
We don't need 10,000 studies to figure this stuff out.
IQ tests only confirm what's wildly obvious.

(note: this evolutionary mismatch is setting up my next string, if not making it unnecessary)

Yet Ejay depends on trying to hammer the 'all the same needs' home.

Ejay so Drubbed he deflected with lonnnnnnnng list.
And, again, We indeed "can't ever come up with a solution" to these cognitive mismatches, just keep pointing them out.
+

 

I don't need to quote you when you aren't saying anything of substance. You claim that I only cite Graves and attack Rushton when debating Race & IQ. I proved you wrong. In the last two pages alone I cited 12 sources and 40 scholars. That of course includes sources within excerpts from books that I cited along with emails and other material. Anyone can go back and read my previous posts to see that I did not "deconstruct" any of the studies to inflate the number of scholars. You didn't respond to any of this research (everyone should know why by now).

You quoted Wikipedia's section on criticisms of the book The Mismeasure of Man. That is intellectually lazy and a strawman. That's like me going on the Wikipedia entry for Race, Evolution and Behavior, quoting text written by other people and saying, "See look at that! Rushton is a fraud!" When I actually critiqued the research of Rushton in my own thread I provided my own perspective on his work, written in my own words, as well as links and references to research I had done myself including email conversations from two scholars I spoke to about his work, links to full articles I read on the subject, a video debate featuring Rushton being refuted by one of the studies and a list of other articles and reviews that critiqued and criticized his work.

I didn't go on an online encyclopedia, quote comments written by anonymous editors and then pretend that I had done my own research. Anyone could do that. Even if you maintain that the content you quoted on Wikipedia contained quotes and references to credible scholars that is still a strawman. We were talking about the claim that Gould did not properly measure the skulls in Morton's collection. You cited Lewis et al. (2011) on this subject and I showed, quoting myself from past discussions, that another scholar reviewed their critique and defended the integrity of Gould's research. I quoted relevant excerpts and images from the article.

I further showed you that I emailed Lewis himself who DOES NOT support your views on racial hierarchies in brain size. You didn't address that. You also didn't address any of my other sources on brain size and intelligence including my response to your citation of Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984), which I don't believe you read given that they reject your opinions and Ho et al. (1980) which provided research on brain weight at autopsy which also doesn't support your position given the unreliability of such data. My sources actually directly address those articles and the misinterpretations of the research in them that people like you and quacks like Rushton make. You would know better if you didn't rely on Wikipedia for your information.

I put up a challenge for you to share your sources since you are defending Scientific Racism.

You haven't provided any of the following:

1) Books you have read on the subject that support your position.

2) Videos of any respected scientists who have given lectures in an academic setting on the subject.

3) Email conversations between yourself and a respected scientist on the subject that supports your position.

You are ducking the challenge because you don't have any of this information. I know that there are scholars in academia who support Scientific Racism. Being a scholar and being respected for your work are two different things. Name-dropping Linda Gottfredson is useless. Show that she has done some actual respectable research on this topic. Where are her books on the subject? Have you read any? Where are her lectures in an academic setting defending this type of research? By that I mean show me a video of her presenting her research in a lecture hall at a University or a panel discussion or a formal debate at a college with another scientist. All I have seen from her is being the author of that article Mainstream Science on Intelligence which was published in the Wall Street Journal with 52 signatories.

She has also given interviews with Youtubers who are proponents of Scientific Racism and defended the scholarship of her colleagues (ex. Rushton and Jensen). She hasn't done anything to establish herself as the foremost expert on IQ research as you claimed. Show that she has some credibility on the level that I have established of my own sources and you will have proven your point. Right now you haven't. She is a Pioneer Fund grantee who has been heavily criticized and was labeled by the SPLC as a racist academic.

This is your source:

Linda Gottfredson

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/linda-gottfredson



Educational psychologist Linda Gottfredson has spent more than three decades fighting against the idea that social equality between black and white Americans is possible, or even desirable.

About Linda Gottfredson

Following a long tradition of scientific racism, Gottfredson argues that racial inequality, especially in employment, is the direct result of genetic racial differences in intelligence. Relying heavily on money obtained from the white nationalist Pioneer Fund, Gottfredson has worked tirelessly to oppose any and all efforts to reduce racial inequality in both in the workplace and in society as a whole.

This is one of my sources:

Joseph Graves

http://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/faculty/joseph-l-graves-jr-ph-d/




Research Interests

Dr. Joseph Graves, Jr. research concerns the evolutionary genetics of postponed aging and biological concepts of race in humans, with over sixty papers and book chapters published, and had appeared in six documentary films and numerous television interviews on these general topics. He has been a Principal Investigator on grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and the Arizona Disease Research Commission.

His books on the biology of race are entitled: The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, Rutgers University Press, 2001, 2005 and The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America, Dutton Press, 2004, 2005. A summary of Dr. Graves’s research career can be found on Wikipedia, and he is also featured in the ABC-CLIO volume on Outstanding African American scientists. In November 2007, he was featured in the CNN Anderson Cooper 360 program on Dr. James Watson.

Books he has written that I have read related to this subject:

1) The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium

2) The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in America

Videos of him giving lectures in an academic setting:





An email conversation I had with him related to this subject:

Well this and the videos are obviously overkill given I have posted so much of this information before (which clearly bothers you as you keep whining about it incessantly so I'll do it again). I will share an email that is directly relevant to this discussion and will compliment my next point in this post.

This is the difference between the level of debate I bring to the discussion and the level you bring. You can name-drop scholars and quote online encyclopedias. You can not defend the integrity of your sources. When you display the ability to do that we can debate on equal ground. So far you have failed. You can't defend Linda Gottfredson. You can't defend James Watson. You can cite their credentials but you can't defend their scholarship when it relates to this subject. You can't do what I just did for Joseph Graves because you don't have enough familiarity with these scholars and their arguments to fulfill my very reasonable request. You hear a name, you read a little bit about them, it sounds good to you and you cite it as if it's the gospel truth.

Case in point, what has Jerry Coyne contributed to this discussion that you feel compliments the credibility of your position? I looked in to your post history and you have only cited him on this board a few times. One of those times you cited him in a discussion with me and all that your comment amounted to was claiming that Coyne believes there are biological races and he is a prestigious scientist so he is better than my sources and science supports your views.

Well first of all, a scientist claiming that there are biological races does not mean they also believe that there are racial differences in intelligence. You even dismissed some of Coyne's comments as being politically correct which means you don't fully endorse him as a source. I did some research on Coyne and haven't found anything from him related to race and intelligence that would support your position. I saw one article by him that was written in a blog and several videos on Youtube about evolution but none directly related to race and intelligence.

I shouldn't have to tell you this as anyone who claims to be scientifically literate and knowledgeable about the subject of evolution but doesn't know that scientists who believe humans have biological races don't necessarily also believe that races differ in intelligence is clearly a fraud. You know this you're just being dishonest by pretending that pointing this out is a debate point in your favor when in actuality there is disagreement among scientists about the existence of races but Scientific Racism is widely regarded as fringe and discredited.

Maybe you should email Coyne and ask him about race and intelligence specifically.

All you have done in this discussion is whine about sources, personally attack me with childish insults and accusations, and showboat like you know what you're talking about and your sources are superior when anyone with familiarity on this subject knows that you don't really know what you are talking about. You are ducking these challenges because you know they expose you as a fraud who hasn't done any serious research.

I wonder how many posts you have left in you before you flee the debate.

Your comments on human evolution show even more ignorance than I already knew you had. Other species on Earth descend from different evolutionary lineages. If you knew anything about the concept of speciation you would not make such stupid comments. Modern Humans descend from one evolutionary lineage with some slight interbreeding with archaic humans. Our genetic potential for intelligence is not the same as any animal species which is why you can not place these animals in a new environment and expect them to behave like a human. You can not adopt a baby gorilla, give it a formal education in America and expect it to graduate from college and get a high paying, cognitively demanding job that it can do. You can do that with a human from any remote village in Africa, South America, New Guinea or any tribe where humans are still living a tribal lifestyle.

Why?

Obviously the reason is because the Gorilla does not possess the genetic potential to adapt to human cultures. Humans possess the ability to adapt to any human culture. Conversely, if you took a pair of identical twin babies let's say White or Asian twins whose parents both have high IQs and can provide their children with the best environment imaginable and we separated them at birth with one twin remaining with the parents and one being deprived of environmental stimuli to a severe degree (e.g. no parents, no school, no other humans to socialize with and only enough nutrition to survive) and raise them in these different environments to adulthood the twin from the good environment would realize their genetic potential. The one in the bad environment wouldn't even be able to take the IQ test. They wouldn't be able to read, write or speak a human language. Their behavior would be feral. They would display radical differences in intelligence. Why? Because of differences in the nurturing environment.

Same genes, different outcomes. Environment is 100% the cause of differences in intelligence.

This same genetic reasoning applies to group differences:





Different groups in different environments will display differences in intelligence if the nurturing environment is not equal despite their genetic potential being the same. That goes for demographic groups with different average standards of living such as Black and White Americans due to racist discrimination or populations such as Europeans in Africans living on different continents with different environmental conditions that lead to differences in culture.

Racial IQ differences are nothing more than a reflection of differences in nurturing environment not the innate mental ability of populations.

As for Black Africans not being able to survive from deadly diseases without "White medicine" because they are evolutionarily millennia behind Whites where was that White medicine when the bubonic plague wiped out 30-60% of Europe's population? Were White people stupid during the 1300s? Were they stupid 6,000 years ago when they had no advanced civilizations and lived a tribal lifestyle in the forests of Europe? These are the type of intellectually bankrupt arguments that expose the ignorance and blatant racism of people like you.

Continued....

 

So once again, you have ignored arguments, ignored sources, ignored requests for defending the credibility of your position, attacked strawmen, hurled childish insults and made baseless accusations to distract from the actual debate, displayed a profound ignorance of the research you've cited and the subject under discussion and just completely made a fool of yourself.

You would have been banned at this point on any respectable science message board. Unless someone bails you out here you've clearly been defeated. This isn't even a debate. You can choose to be a punching bag for me to display the poor level of debate skills of proponents of Scientific Racism or you can step away, post in another thread and pretend it didn't happen. Only an idiot would believe that you are contributing legitimate discussion to this debate at this point. All you are doing is trolling.

But by all means keep it up. You have displayed an inability to raise your debate skills to a respectable level and with each post you are only proving my point.

 

WHAT!
In 103 I answered your challenges from 102.
Absolutely quoted and CRUSHED it. (even got the rare 'like' from fifth)
So in 104, you went all over the place NOT answering, and barely quoting me, cause you got completely stuffed.
So in 105, I reiterated my answers to your Disingenuous Deflections to keep on points.
(in addition pointing out the basic ILLogic in your 'answers' to FifthofNovember.)

Now I see you put up.. the Graves-Rushton youtube A-G-G-G-AIN in 106!
AND another Graves Youtube...
AND yet another of Your 'Dear Uncle Joe Graves' email repeats!
A Triple header.

I accuse/Nail you for too much Graves... so you put up more Graves!
You drop all our subtopics, but want to make sure you SPAM up your Graves for the day/evening/hour.
Medic!
!'ve just real!zed you're not just reiterating/overusing, !t's OCD.
An obsessive 100% Race poster, who also compulsively spray paints 'Gravesfitti' on any open space/page/string multiple times.

Worse than any creationist spouting the NT.
Never seen anything like it, except in Your posts here and Everywhere: it's the same.
ie, I remember marveling at one now:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/scie...argely-genetic-w-957-a-78.html#post1060525170
and many, many, more.
Really, I thought it was just overuse until this moment when you did it for the umpteenth time.

This issue is not resolvable here.
Thanos is right. Another problem "realists can't solve". A psych, maybe.
b-bye
+

 

Your post is very poorly written.
So bad, I cannot determine what your point is.
I came across this gem from you:
"We have to remember that Nazi's were leftist. They were socialist"

That is exactly opposite of the truth, and I didn't want to read any more of your post.
Stop posting and educate yourself.
Hitler outlined antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy.
Fascism/Nazism is at the extreme right. Socialism/communism is left.

 

Post #102 is not even a reply to you. You failed to provide any of the following:

1) Books you have read on the subject that support your position.

2) Videos of any respected scientists who have given lectures in an academic setting on the subject.

3) Email conversations between yourself and a respected scientist on the subject that supports your position.

In post #104 I refuted your contention that I only use Graves as a source and don't have a variety of quality sources or scholars to cite. I also directly addressed relevant arguments from your previous posts.

You ducked my request to provide the 3 forms of information above that could validate your legitimacy as a serious debater in this discussion.

This is psychological projection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

You exhibit behavioral characteristics consistent with OCD. Your frantic writing style and repetition of the same points over and over (e.g. "You're quoting Graves!") without displaying the ability to comprehend how your behavior appears to others is a key symptom of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. This is one of your many rituals. You write in the same style over and over in a way that suggests you have an unbalanced and one track mind. In reality you are actually fixating on my citation of Graves because it bothers you and you want me to stop because you don't know how to respond to the arguments. You're also using reverse psychology (poorly) to try to get me to stop by trying to shame me in to avoiding Graves as a source. That's why I deliberately did it and even pointed that out to you but you didn't pick up on it because of your obsessive thought process (e.g. "What can I do to get him to stop citing Graves?!").

You're also flat out lying about me avoiding sub-topics. I addressed every relevant topic you brought up which wasn't a personal attack or blatant attempt to distract from the real discussion.

You ignored all of it because you know you can't respond.

Is that all you have left in you? You're fleeing the debate after ONE post where you ignored all of the scientific arguments and challenges posed to you? I predicted you would quit. I pondered how many posts you have left in you before you realize the futility of debating me. This is the equivalent of getting knocked out in Round 1.

You really aren't going to defend the integrity of Linda Gottfredson?

You aren't going to email Jerry Coyne and ask him about race and intelligence?

You're not going to address my rebuttal to your claims on Brain Size and Intelligence?

You're not going to address my arguments on quantitative genetics?

You're not going to respond to my demolition of your (and fifthofnovember's) evolutionary arguments?

You're really going to punk out that quickly and let your opponent prove his intellectual superiority to you on your pet topic where you've been arguing that people who look like you are superior?

What is the world coming to? I thought internet racists were supposed to have a spine and debate until their opponent quits.



Well not really. I knew you'd let your OCD get the better of you and use it as an excuse to run from the debate. I predict these things!

Now for my next prediction...you will do one of the following:

1) Permanently flee from debate and claim that you're not going to waste your time with me (then brag about being the victor in a future discussions).

2) Change your mind and return but not fulfill ANY of the requests for information that defends your legitimacy as a serious debater.

3) Return and perform the same OCD rituals you've been doing all a long. You will write in the same style and fixate on the exact same claims that don't contribute to discussion.

e.g.

a. "I discuss more topics on the internet than you!"

b. "You're always debating Graves vs. Rushton and quoting Graves!"

c. "You post about race, race and nothing but race 24/7 because you don't have a life!"

You will do one of the three. You will not and I repeat NOT respond to all of the relevant points in this discussion nor the reasonable requests asked of you because you don't have it in you. You lack the knowledge to respond to these requests properly and the maturity to recognize that this is the proper discourse to further the discussion.

In fact I am so confident that you will not do this I will actually declare you the victor in the debate if you do. I will give you until Saturday to fulfill option 4 and if you do it you win. That's my word. I won't necessarily stop debating but I will declare you the honorary winner.

I will write the following:

"Taxonomy26 is the winner of this debate. Every post I have made in this discussion is wrong. He is right. Racial differences in intelligence exist and he proved it."

I won't use quotes either and will put it in big bold text in every future post of mine in this discussion.

If you respond to each and every topic in this post, which you ignored and fulfill the 3 requests asked of you while writing in a different format and not doing any of the first 3 options in your next post you are the official winner of the debate. That's my word.

If you didn't have OCD you'd take the bait and defend your reputation as a serious debater while getting a guaranteed acknowledgment that you won the debate (which is rare in internet debates).

But predictably you will find another excuse to punk out and fall in to one of the 3 predictable patterns. I'm caught in catch-22 here. If you do it and I don't fulfill the request you will have proven me to be a liar. If you do it and I fulfill the request, no matter what transpires afterwards you will have effectively humiliated me by proving me wrong and being declared by your opponent as the winner.

You won't do it because you can't.

Prove me wrong.

 

:^)
Having lost EVERYTHING we've discussed here..., and everywhere for that matter...
Ejay issues these LONG Fallacious 'challenges.' New hurdles that have nothing to do with his having lost, except avoiding/deflecting it into never, never, land.

I have to post the books I've read, the people I've emailed, researchers I've dated, etc, etc, etc..%&^$#$**%##
And then if I do all those things...
and then enter an Iron Man Triathlon, Swim to Caracas, and raise Princess Di from the grave....... he'll concede!
LOFL

You lost the points at hand no matter who I emailed.
I just know more and am more logical.
Buddy (in addition to OCD/Gravesfitti) your desperado posts are 'obtuse': not past high school level.

Obviously it's just deflecting BS.
ie, the First one I'll indulge for DEMO purpose Only:
Gottfredson: who you Underhandedly only used SPLC on instead of, ie, Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Gottfredson
Something you Were informed of the First time you tried it in my string.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-on-race-and-iq.479911/page-3#post-1066735350
It doesn't get much better than that.. and you already had it posted at You. (but have no memory space for anything but Graves)

Your posts are so juvenile.
Despite the fact you spend all of the last decade+ on this, you're not even challenging for me. Just comical/a Graves spammer.
+
(watch: Ejay will fallaciously claim victory because I didn't play '100-irrelevant-additional-Qualifying-questions' with him.
But he already got porked on the debate at hand)
Bye again!
+

 

Well there you have it folks. Defying all logic Taxonomy26 went for a combination of Option 2 and Option 3 using the same writing style and fixating on the same tired old claim (e.g. "You're always debating Graves vs. Rushton and quoting Graves!"). He didn't respond to any of the arguments presented to him. He didn't fulfill any of the requests. He made excuses (e.g. "3 requests is too many"). He reacted emotionally with melodramatic taunts. He declared himself the victor without backing up any of his claims. He did exactly what I said he was going to do. Why? Because he can't do anything differently. He can't debate like a sensible poster.

Bye again? Is it really that hard to make up your mind about whether to stay or leave? Are you going to write bye again the next time too? What's wrong? Can't you control yourself? Or maybe you have a mental problem. Could it be....OCD?!

You pretend that it is hard to fulfill any of my three requests when I did all of them as an example with one of my sources with little effort.

Oh and you're really complaining about me not using Wikipedia as my link for a bio on Linda Gottfredson. Really? I know that in your mind Wikipedia is the go to source because you don't know anything else (like an academic link which I used for Graves). But here's something that apparently went over your head. Why is Linda Gottfredson on SPLC and labeled a racist in the first place if she's such as respectable scholar? The foremost expert on IQ research no less (in your mind). If she's not a racist bigot then defend her as a source.

Provide the following information:

1) Books you have read by her on the subject that support your position.

2) Videos of her giving a lecture in an academic setting on the subject.

3) Email conversations between yourself and Gottfredson on the subject that supports your position.

I will make this easier on you.

Provide just ONE book you have read on this subject from ANY scholar you value as a source.

Provide just ONE lecture by Gottfredson in an academic setting.

Provide ONE email conversation between you and ANY scholar that directly addresses race and intelligence.

Go ahead. You won't do it because you're not a serious debater. You are a fraud. You talked all big about how you are an EVO buff with all of these quality sources and superior debate skills who can show that "race-realism" is a scientifically respectable position but you can't provide ANY of this information. Also remember I didn't invent this criteria for evidence of being a serious debater on the topic. You are the one who attacked my use of sources for their quality. You are the one who claimed that you've emailed several scholars on the topic. You are the one who claims that "race-realism" will be proven correct soon. Very soon. Itz coming! They're going to find all of the IQ genes and show that they are unevenly differentiated between races. That scientific breakthrough is coming ya'll!

And yet here you are with nothing to back up all of that showboating.

You ducked my invitation to debate at Sciforum.

The last time we had a debate on a science message board YOU got the thread closed by getting in to flame wars with other posters (no loss for me as I had lost interest by the time you showed up).

You said you could debate me here, that you would destroy me like all of the other times (in your own mind) and when it came time to fulfill requests for credible sources you made excuses, tucked your tail and ran from the debate. Then you returned. Then you left again. Now you're back but you say you're done again. What's going to happen next? Are you going to do the same thing you did in your previous post AGAIN?

How insane are your justifications for not debating and trolling going to get this time? Or are you going to flee like you did during the race and testosterone debate?

Make up your mind.

 

Good Morning. Is anyone ready for another beatdown? I hope that Taxonomy26 had a good night's sleep. He's going to need it in order to respond to this post.

I have established in this thread that Taxonomy26 is a fraud when it comes to his claim of being a seasoned and knowledgeable debater on the subject of evolution which he references for his foundation as a good poster to discuss the topic of race and intelligence from a respectable, scientific perspective.

Reality:

1) He hasn't listed a single book he has read on this topic.

2) He hasn't provided a single email conversation related to this subject with any scholars he has contacted.

3) He can not defend the credibility of any of his sources as unbiased respected scholars who have presented their research on video in an academic setting.


He did make a claim that interests me though. He stated that he had demolished arguments made by Joseph Graves in a previous debate on a science forum. I remember the thread but I don't remember the post. Looking back on the thread I can see why. In the thread on Scienceforum.net that I started titled "Did humans evolve into separate races that differ in mental traits?" Taxonomy26 under the name Bering Strait did debate me briefly however I left the thread because I recognized that it wasn't a good platform for scientific discussion.

I did debate Taxonomy26 briefly after seeing his replies in my email inbox but left before I saw that post and by the time I checked on it again the thread had been closed due to him getting in flame wars. Since he insists he won this debate and refuted Graves I can quote him here.

First of all Taxonomy26, your posts on that message board are written like trash. I notice that you did complain about the posting options on the board which combined with your bizarre writing style, which you also use on this board, make your posts look sloppy. I will however respond to all of the relevant points you brought up in this post.

This first comment is a prime example of your ignorance on this subject. For starters yes, we do need to understand the cause of a phenomenon in order to establish why it occurs. The reason we need to understand "cause and effect" is because there may be alternative explanations for an event occurring. Mere correlation data does not identify the cause.

Ironically Suzuki pointed this out to Rushton in their debate by using the example of cigarette smoking and lung cancer to show the importance of not confusing correlation with causation. Stained fingers and teeth are highly correlated with cigarette smoking and lung cancer but by your logic if we don't need to understand the cause and can rely on mere correlation data then one could get the mistaken impression that stained fingers and teeth cause lung cancer. Understanding the cause of racial differences in IQ is central to Rushton's argument which is why he wrote a full book attempting to explain the data he had collected which is why Graves followed up that statement with,

"This is why his 1994 book was entitled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. Its goal was to explain using evolutionary theory (the only scientific means to explain human variation) why racial differences in intelligence exist. As I point out in my work, evolutionary science does not support this conclusion."

This is how science works:

1) Gather facts.

2) Formulate a hypothesis to make sense of the facts.

3) Test the Hypothesis.

The problem with Rushton's work is that he never put his theories to a meaningful test. He doesn't allow them to the opportunity to be falsified and this is why he never responded to Graves' criticism of his work in print because he didn't know how. He just ignored the scientific research that refuted his arguments.

PSEUDOSCIENCE displays a remarkable and characteristic indifference to fact. Writers tend simply to make up bogus “facts”— what Norman Mailer calls “factoids”— where needed, instead of going to the trouble of consulting reliable reference works, much less investigating directly. Yet these fictitious facts are often central to the pseudoscientist’s argument and conclusions! This can also be seen in the fact that pseudoscientists never revise. The first edition of any pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book may go through innumerable new printings, over decades or centuries. Even a book with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page is just reprinted as it is, over and over. Compare to college science textbooks, which usually see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts, ideas, discoveries, experiments and insights in science. - Rory Coker Phd

Finally, you say we don't have a mechanism (or rather haven't identified one) on evolution/speciation. So you've never heard of natural selection?!

Serious Question: Have you ever read Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, passed High School Biology or read any book on Evolution?

This level of ignorance on a subject you claim to be significantly knowledgeable on is inexcusable.

Moving on....

This post here shows that you don't actually read your own sources. An article written in The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education should have been your first clue that this article doesn't support your conclusion. If you'd actually read it you would know that it says that cultural differences and education standards in public schools between Black and White Americans explain differences in SAT scores even at higher income levels in Blacks vs. lower income levels in Whites.

Read the sections titled Other Explanations for the Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT instead of cherry-picking text that you feel supports your conclusion.

If you'd actually watched the Graves vs. Rushton debate on my Youtube channel you would know that Rushton brought up the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study to show that genes can be separated from culture experimentally to validate his genetic hypothesis for the cause of racial differences in IQ. Graves countered this and shut Rushton down by explaining that adoption studies can not control for environmental differences between groups such as Blacks and Whites because of the psychological effects of racism.

You can watch Graves destroy Rushton on this issue yourself citing the research of Sandra Scarr, one of the lead authors of the study (start at: 1:33:55):



Richard Nisbett critiqued a lot of the psychometric research Rushton and Jensen rely on for their arguments which you can view in the link below (which was also listed as one of my 5 primary sources).

• HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

Nisbett directly addressed the Minnsota Transracial Adoption Study in his book and listed several weaknesses of the study acknowledged by its own authors.

1. Selective Placement - Adoption agencies may have engaged in selective placement which could have put Black adoptees in families of lower social class.

2. Unknown IQ of Natural Parents - Since the natural parents of the adopted children was not known the IQs of the White children could have been above the average of the White American IQ mean granting them higher genotypic IQ or the Black children could have been below the Black American IQ mean resulting in them having lower genotypic IQ.

3. Late Adoption Age - Black children were adopted at a substantially later age which has a negative effect on IQ.

4. Foster Homes - The Black children had longer placement in foster homes than the White children which also has a negative effect on IQ.

5. Preadoptive Placement - The preadoptive placement of the Black children was worse than the White children which can also negatively impact IQ.

6. Psychological disturbance from identity issues - According to Sandra Scarr the Black children in the study had an unusual degree of psychological disturbance as a result of being raised by White families. Some of the kids made comments about looking in the mirror and seeing a Black face while knowing deep down that they were really White. Others didn't understand why they weren't placed with a Black family and felt that they didn't belong.

Bottom Line: Transracial Adoption isn't the great equalizer that you think it is.

Continued....

 

I've already addressed this in earlier posts. The high heritability of intelligence doesn't mean that there are group differences in IQ. Twin studies do establish a strong genetic component to intelligence but as I showed you with my example of identical twins reared apart in vastly different environments even individuals with exact same genes can display radical differences in intelligence due to differences in environment because intelligence has to be nurtured. Group differences in IQ do not mean that the groups don't have the same genetic potential as environmental differences can 100% explain the differences in IQ.

Look at this nice image and the lecture with the Yale Professor (start at 47:00) who directly addresses these points (which were also brought up by Graves in his debate with Rushton):

Considering the fact that South African Coloreds have traditionally received a better education than South African Blacks due to racist discrimination in a society where interracial families were shown favoritism and considering the fact that African-Americans have a higher standard of living on average than Sub-Saharan Africans an environmental explanation for the 85 vs. 70 IQ difference is just as plausible as a genetic one.

We also know the genetic explanation is invalid thanks to racial admixture studies which show that high Black IQ is not strongly correlated with degree of White admixture. The studies showing this are referenced in the article by Nisbett that I posted above in the section titled, "Direct Tests of Heritability of the Black–White IQ Difference."

Excerpt:

Most important, Rushton and Jensen (2005) ignore or misrepresent a large
literature dealing with the most direct sort of evidence, which relates to the
influence of European ancestry on Black intelligence. U.S. “Black” populations
contain as much as 30% European genes. This means that an individual who is
identified as Black could have anywhere from 100% African ancestry to mostly
European ancestry (true of as much as 15% of some U.S “Black” subpopulations;
Herskovits, 1930). This allows us to identify the extent to which percentage
African ancestry, variously assessed, is associated with IQ. Five different types of
studies allow for an estimation of the effect of relatively African versus relatively
European genes on IQ. I report these below in increasing order of what I take to
be their probativeness.

Also the claim that the average IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans is 70 has been falsified. This claim is largely based on the research of Richard Lynn which was refuted by Jelte Wicherts (one of the 40 scholars I listed earlier). Read his review of the reliability of Lynns IQ tests and data below:

• A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans Intelligence 38 (2010) 1–20

The banned poster Mikemikev (Phill) actually posted the same study on SciForum (the science message board you ducked an invitation to debate on).

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...onal-differences-in-cognitive-ability.155804/

Once posters reviewed the study it was revealed that the authors used dishonest methods to select the "experts" for their surveys in a way that ensured that the majority of intelligence researchers questioned would already be supportive of a hereditarian explanation for racial differences in IQ.

Read Bells' analysis in post #17 for a good overview of the problems with the study. I recommend reading the full discussion.

Graves addressed the genomic research on this topic concluding that candidate genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association.

• Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86, 2013

This was also one of my 5 primary sources.

This claim has no value as it was falsified decades ago.

I've already addressed this before but this quote of mine from a discussion on another board provides links to studies that address this topic:

Your failure to address my rebuttal to the claim of racial hierarchies in brain size has not gone unnoticed by me in this thread. If you were capable of defending that claim when you wrote this post you would have done it here in our current discussion.

Did you read this book (tell the truth)? I have a digital copy of it on my computer. First of all, the authors, like Linda Gottfredson, are listed as racist academics by the SPLC.

Henry Harpending



Henry Harpending is a controversial anthropologist at the University of Utah who studies human evolution and, in his words, “genetic diversity within and between human populations.”

About Henry Harpending

Harpending is most famous for his book, co-authored with frequent collaborator Gregory Cochran, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, which argues that humans are evolving at an accelerating rate, and that this began when the ancestors of modern Europeans and Asians left Africa. Harpending believes that this accelerated evolution is most visible in differences between racial groups, which he claims are growing more distinct and different from one another. The evolution of these racial differences are, in Harpending’s account, the driving force behind all of modern human history. He is also a eugenicist who believes that medieval Europeans intuitively adopted eugenic policies, and that we should recognize the importance of eugenics in our own society. Harpending has given talks on these ideas at white supremacist conferences, and is widely celebrated among white supremacists on forums like Stormfront and the Vanguard News Network, who see a champion for their cause behind his academic rhetoric.

Since you want to recommend books I have a good one for you. Try reading this one which I also own:

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Race-Troubling-Persistence-Unscientific/dp/067466003X



You'll see that the core arguments of Harpending, Rushton and other academic racists have been refuted and learn about the biased research program of the Pioneer Fund which is behind a lot of this sinsister research.

I even invited the author, Robert Sussman, to discuss the research in his book in an earlier thread.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...g-persistence-of-an-unscientific-idea.391430/

Your failure to defend your argument in this thread shows everyone the extent to what you are capable of in a debate with me.

Oh and I loved this gem....

No Taxonomy26, you could not debate Joseph Graves. You have no place calling anyone stupid or biased in this discussion considering your profound ignorance of the subject of evolution displayed in this post and the insane amount of trolling you have done in this thread in order to evade arguments directed to you. But hey, if you think you are smarter than Joseph Graves and you think you can debate him on this subject you are always free to email him yourself and challenge him to a debate. From personal experience I know he won't come here as he doesn't believe in wasting time with racists on message boards however you might be able to convince him to debate you at a platform of his choosing.

Of course we all know how that would really play out. You don't need a psychic to predict what you will actually do with this suggestion.

By the way do you like Mixed Martial Arts?



How are you enjoying the canvas? Are you ready to throw in the towel yet or do you want more?

 

Academia is controlled by Marxist Jews who are bent on destroying white civilizations and blending the white race out of existence. This bias and agenda cannot be ignored in this debate. Any scientific research that conforms to their left-wing worldview and political goal will be deemed "settled science" and promoted by the media (which they also control). Any scientific research that does not conform to their left-wing worldview and political goal will be thoroughly savaged, with the researchers being faced with the threat of losing their careers, or even their lives, to the leftist mob. Academia is hostile towards right-wing viewpoints, even ones backed by scientific research, for this very reason. One need only look to the chaos erupting at Berkeley whenever a conservative speaker is scheduled to speak. Unruly leftists have been successful in shutting down these events almost every time by using intimidation and threats. This strategy works for them, which is why they will keep using it. It is impossible to have a free exchange of ideas in an Academic setting if you are not a member of the left, so ultimately this whole "debate" is pointless.

Aside from religious belief, the right is primarily concerned with what they can see, versus hypotheticals that have never been successfully achieved. While the left spends their time imagining different scenarios in which communism can work, the right knows it's a failure, due to its history of failing each and every time it has been attempted. The right sticks with capitalism, because we have seen objective proof that is works. The latter is based on human nature, whereas the former is not. The same type of logic applies to this debate. We can see consistent results from IQ tests and every other measure of intelligence that some races tend to be smarter than others. Personally, at this point, I'm really not too concerned what percentage of this is due to nature or nurture. The argument made by black supremacists masquerading as "egalitarians" is that blacks are physically superior to whites in penis size ("racist white women need "black dick" to cure their racism (paraphrasing)", running and jumping sports due to more fast twitch muscle fibers, generally better athletic ability, etc, and they are just as smart as whites and everyone else, despite things like IQ tests, achievement levels, etc. The gap only exists because of environmental issues caused by racism. Whites have zero advantage over blacks, so they are inferior to blacks. That's the argument, yet to maintain his façade, it's not written down for public record.

Even if blacks were just as smart as everyone else, "diversity" would still be a destructive policy for my race. I would still prefer Europe to remain European instead of African. Africans have their own continent, and nobody is threatening them with replacement. It'll remain black forever, probably, unless some new virus comes around and white countries refuse to share some of their medical research. I can't imagine what the population of Africa would look like had it not been for white scientists developing medicine, and white countries sending aid money.

 

the white, black, asian races are social constructs with no real basis in biology or genetics

 

They can determine the race of someone based on DNA evidence.

 

oh yeah?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ical-twins-different-skin-colour-born-UK.html

 

Yes.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask32

 

guess u didnt look at the article i posted

 

what race is this guy?

black or white?

 

No need. Why would the FBI run a genetics test to determine what race someone is if they can't tell that information from a genetics test?

 

Mixed, like all Arabs are.

 

what race are these two girls?

 

"mixed" is not a race