What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

I said they were synonyms for each other in common use which your own source (Wikipedia) agrees with. If they have a different meaning in relation to the scientific method that's interesting but not relevant to anything being discussed here. So stop trolling.

 

IQ tests do not measure how much book learning you have. You should know this. Knowing how to take a paper and pencil test in order to take the IQ test itself is the only book-type learning you need to take one. You're confusing developing a skill you already have to acquiring one which you do not possess.

"General cognitive ability, assessed by cognitive tests and often referred to as intelligence quotient (IQ), reflects a general capacity of abstract reasoning and learning potential." -- US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

This is a repetition of the same claims you were making on YouTube which I already addressed. These claims are patently false and largely come from the discredited Nisbett. I've already cited the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study in this regard; the black kids raised in more affluent white homes did not have IQs of the white adoptive parent, but the lower ones of the black adoptive parents. You insist on falling back to the environmental thesis of IQ difference which you have clung to Nisbett/Graves to substantiate, and Nisbett was already outed as a poor researcher at best. The Minnesota Study showed an even greater than 15 point difference going into adulthood.

Repeating the same assertions over and over is a circular argument, and is thus invalid.

Source, please? Since IQ tests measure general cognitive ability, I'd like to know how book learning increases this. Sounds like a Nisbett claim, like....

https://aps.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2009/july-august-09/intelligence-and-how-to-get-it.html

Education allows one to cultivate the cognitive ability they possess, not to give them cognitive ability they do not have.

You refute your own by using a shyster like Nisbett. You also refute your own by making circular arguments about environmental upbringing impacting IQ while repeatedly failing to explain the results of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study's findings, which I've pointed out repeatedly whenever you claim that being brought up in a better home boosts IQ. You also refute your own by acting as if these environmental claims are solid when in fact no consensus to this end remotely exists.

The textbooks I am about to cite show the consensus on the topic in the field.

That professor is engaging in a correlation equals causation fallacy, and he's also assuming without a shred of evidence that lower class groups' IQs are caused by their status as lower classes, and this is untrue. He's probably a fan of Nisbett and if I were remotely interested in watching that video, I may well find him citing Nisbett directly. You keep invoking the false environmental thesis.

What's the deal here? I already showed the problems with the Flynn Effect, and you ignore them and invoke it again as if I never said anything without answering my point on this, thus yet again committing a circular argument. I'm sorry but coming back later on with the same arguments in reworded fashion is exactly the definition of what a circular argument is. What you're doing is nothing short of an extended attempt at blaming white people for poorer black performance on IQ tests.

I pointed out such as in the study Ability Differentials between Nations Are Unlikely to Disappear that the Flynn Effect in cohorts has not been seen in children born since about 1980. You have yet to respond to this. You have also failed to tell me how colored toilets lower black IQ.

American Psychologist, v67 n6 p501-502 Sep 2012

Comments on the original article, "Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments," by R. E. Nisbett, J. Aronson, C. Blair, W. Dickens, J. Flynn, D. F. Halpern, and E. Turkheimer (see record 2011-30298-001). This comment challenges Nisbett et al's argument that Flynn effect gains will eliminate cross-national IQ inequalities "by the end of the 21st century and falsify the hypothesis that some nations lack the intelligence to fully industrialize" (p. 140). The present authors find that this optimism is not justified by the evidence. In Europe and the United States, Flynn effects are indeed rare in cohorts born after about 1980. Furthermore, it is necessary to distinguish between accelerated childhood development and higher adult intelligence.

Remember? This was the same study that Nisbett wrote back to you saying that nobody trashed it in a critical review. As you can see, he lied. He got his ass kicked in again. You're claiming Nisbett's environmental theories indirectly without citing his (soiled) name, invoking something he claimed was going on in terms of the Flynn Effect which is in fact NOT going on.

You are citing the claims of a debunked person and those who agree with him and are acting as if they're proven accepted consensus. They are not. In lieu of this, you then cite a biologist who has nothing to do with the field of psychology, and who also made a HORRIBLY inaccurate statement you previously cited on another thread,

The problem with your citing Graves copy/paste like this is that he's making statements without giving the ability to verify them. He's grossly overstating stereotype threat, and if he were familiar with basic college psych he should know better than to make this statement. Graves is overstepping his training into psychology and making an ass of himself.

This is pretty bad; so bad that someone without even taking enough psych classes to get a degree in the discipline can sniff him out.

See below for his destruction. Another Graves gaffe -

50% is the low end of the estimate of the heritability of IQ; not the proven accepted consensus estimate of it. Many tests such as identical twin adoption studies show markedly higher heritabilities than this, even in childhood when environmental factors figure highest into IQ and behavior.

This is from an introductory psychology textbook recently used at a college I attended (Exploring Psychology by David Myers) -

What have we learned from comparisons of intelligence test scores of adopted children with those of (a) their adoptive siblings; (b) their biological parents, the providers of their genes; and (c) their adoptive parents, the providers of their home environment? During childhood, the intelligence test scores of adoptive siblings correlate modestly. Over time, adopted children accumulate experience in their differing adoptive families. So would you expect the family environment effect to grow with age and the genetic legacy effect to shrink? If you would, behavior geneticists have a surprise for you. Mental similarities between adopted children and their adoptive families wane with age, until the correlation approaches zero by adulthood (McGue et al., 1993). This is even true of virtual twins—same age, biologically unrelated siblings reared together from infancy (Segal et al., 2007). Genetic influences—not environmental ones—become more apparent as we accumulate life experience (Bouchard, 1995, 1996b). Identical twins’ similarities, for example, continue or increase into their eighties (McClearn et al., 1997; Plomin et al., 1997). Similarly, adopted children’s intelligence scores over time become more like those of their biological parents.

Similar was also found from the Swedish Twin Adoption Study of Aging. IQs in adopted identical twins reared apart were so similar that they could take the tests for each other (Exploring the Lifespan, Janet Belsky) Overall IQ in this study showed to be the most heritable trait in this study.

Further, also from Myers,

Critics note that stereotype threat does not fully account for the Black-White aptitude score difference (Sackett et al., 2004, 200

As well as,

By age 4, however, children’s performance on intelligence tests begins to predict their adolescent and adult scores. Moreover, high-scoring adolescents tend to have been early readers. One study surveyed the parents of 187 American seventh- and eighth-graders who had taken a college aptitude test as part of a seven-state talent search and had scored considerably higher than most high school seniors. If their parents’ memories can be trusted, more than half of this precocious group of adolescents began reading by age 4 and more than 80 percent were reading by age 5 (Van Tassel-Baska, 1983). Not surprisingly, then, intelligence tests given to 5-year-olds do predict school achievement (Tramontana et al., 198. After about age 7, intelligence test scores, though certainly not fixed, stabilize (Bloom, 1964). Thus, the consistency of scores over time increases with the age of the child. The remarkable stability of aptitude scores by late adolescence is seen in a U.S. Educational Testing Service study of 23,000 students who took the SAT and then later took the GRE (Angoff, 198. On either test, verbal scores correlated only modestly with math scores—revealing that these two aptitudes are distinct. Yet scores on the SAT verbal test correlated +.86 with the scores on the GRE verbal tests taken four to five years later. An equally astonishing +.86 correlation occurred between the two math tests. Given the time lapse and differing educational experiences of these 23,000 students, the stability of their aptitude scores is remarkable.

And,

The intelligence test scores of identical twins reared together are virtually as similar as those of the same person taking the same test twice (Lykken, 1999; Plomin, 2001). (The scores of fraternal twins, who typically share only half their genes, are much less similar.) Likewise, the test scores of identical twins reared separately are similar enough to have led twin researcher Thomas Bouchard (1996a) to estimate that “about 70 percent” of intelligence test score variation “can be attributed to genetic variation.” Other estimates range from 50 to 75 percent (Devlin et al., 1997; Neisser et al., 1996; Plomin, 2003).

Also,

For simple reaction time tasks that measure processing speed, estimates range from 30 to 50 percent (Beaujean, 2005). Brain scans reveal that identical twins have very similar gray matter volume, and that their brains (unlike those of fraternal twins) are virtually the same in areas associated with verbal and spatial intelligence (Thompson et al., 2001).

Graves is grossly overstepping himself. Citing a biologist about psychology is like citing a PhD in finger painting about advanced calculus. Graves is out of line and shouldn't be commenting about a field that is not his.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain the huge similarity in IQ among identical twins raised separately since you support the environmental thesis. You have failed to do this and instead keep repeating the environmentalist line. This is circular argumentation by definition.

http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm

"The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

Heritability of traits INCLUDING IQ increases over time, and the IQ gap remains. This explains the IQ gap going into adulthood that remained in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and elsewhere. The US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth also found that http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851186/

The association between IQ and SES grew stronger with age, suggesting that at least part of the association flowed from IQ to SES rather than the reverse. Namely, the strengthening association between IQ and later SES would be difficult to explain by reverse causality whereas it is plausible that the influence of IQ on SES becomes stronger with age as individuals have more opportunities to attain higher SES.

The problem with your overall argument on this topic is that you have often made it a bone of contention to go after Rushton like a rabid dog for whatever reason, this approach is that IQ studies that show grossly unequal averages have been done internationally for decades. Hundreds of these studies exist. It's not one guy, it's not one book. Example:

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/lynn2010.pdf

ABSTRACT: Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas (2009) contend that the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is about 80. A critical evaluation of the studies presented byWDMshows that many of these are based on unrepresentative elite samples. We show that studies of 29 acceptably representative samples on tests other than the Progressive Matrices give a sub-Saharan Africa IQ of 69; studies of the most satisfactory representative samples on the Standard Progressive Matrices give an IQ of 66; studies of 23 acceptably representative samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices give an IQ of 71. The international studies of mathematics, science, and reading give a sub-Saharan African IQ of 66. The four data sets can be averaged to give an IQ of 68 as the best reading of the IQ in sub-Saharan Africa.

As we already know, the average IQ of whites is 100.

Hedges and Nowell's methodologies were criticized:

Although it makes a significant contribution to our understanding of black-white test score trends as they relate to family characteristics, the Hedges and Nowell studies (1998, 1999) are not without limitations. First, the measures of family characteristics (e.g., family income and parents' education) were not operationalized in the same way. For example, in the 1965 Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO) data, Hedges and Nowell used possessions in the home as a proxy for family income because income data were not available in the EEO as they were in the other data they analyzed. Second, Hedges and Nowell were not able to examine changes in schools that occurred during the early 1960s and 1990s, and they raised the importance of such analyses. Finally, although such changes were beyond the scope of the Hedges and Nowell studies, it was unfortunate that they did not examine changes in the Latino-white test score gap as they did for the black-white gap.

-- Examining Gaps in Mathematics Achievement Among Racial Ethnic Groups 1972-1992.

The conclusion of this 1972-1992 study? "Overall, U.S. high school students today are scoring about the same as they were in the early 1970s in terms of achievement proficiency in mathematics and reading." The achievement gap closed somewhat and then stalled, much like the Flynn Effect data shows.

And this also begs the question for those who are proponents for the environmental theory of IQ differences. Why do Latinos average about 10 points lower than whites? Is border control oppression that impacts their intellects?

I've already shown the limits and flaws of the Flynn Effect. It's not showing up in cohorts born about after 1980, if not 1970. The trends aren't continuing.

Indeed, as Myers pointed out, there's evidence of it reversing:

Although the gains have recently reversed in Scandinavia, the historic increase is now widely accepted as an important phenomenon (Sundet et al., 2004; Teasdale & Owen, 2005, 200.

 

Its pretty easy to do well on a test when you're the one making it.

 

Blacks were quite successful in Africa. Considering that climate and fauna, that alone is an achievement.

 

I never said it did. You're attacking a strawman.

No, I'm saying that you need certain skills to do well on an IQ test and that learning is very important for dealing with what an IQ test measures. You need a certain amount of knowledge just to take the test and to excel at it you also need to be taught certain things such as abstract reasoning. It's not an innate ability that you just have or you don't it must be nurtured.

I've already addressed the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. It's methodologically flawed.

Adoption Studies

There are three major adoption studies that address the question of genetic
contribution to the Black–White IQ difference. The first two reported below
receive one sentence each of description from Rushton and Jensen (2005); the
third receives seven paragraphs.

Assignment of Black and White Adoptees to the Same Environment

Tizard, Cooperman, and Tizard (1972) studied Black and White children
assigned to a highly enriched institutional environment. At age 4 or 5, the White
children had IQs of 103, the Black children IQs of 108, and mixed-race children
IQs of 106. The Black children were West Indian and the White children were
English, and though it is possible that the Black children were born to more
intelligent parents than the White children, Flynn (1980) has argued that the
difference could have been only enough to eradicate the Black advantage in IQ
score, not to turn the advantage to the Black children.
Assignment of Black and White Adoptees to Different White Families
The study to which Rushton and Jensen (2005) allocate so much space is the
single adoption study that provides any support whatever to the hereditarian
position. This is a study by Scarr and Weinberg (1976; Weinberg, Scarr, &
Waldman, 1992), which examined adoptees into White families who had two
White biological parents, two Black biological parents, or one Black and one
White parent. The study is more difficult to interpret than the other two, one of

which assigns Black children, who were probably equivalent in expected IQ, to
either Black or White middle-class families and the other of which assigns both
Black and White children to the same environment. The Scarr and Weinberg study
held neither race nor expected IQ nor adoptive setting constant. An additional
problem with the Scarr and Weinberg study is that the Black children were
adopted at a later age than the others, which would prompt an assumption of lower
initial IQ for them. In addition, the Black children’s mothers had lower educational
levels than did those of the other two groups, which also would prompt an
assumption of lower initial IQ. Finally, the “quality of placement” was higher for
White children than for other children. All of these facts combined mean that it
is not possible to know what to predict under either a hereditarian model or a pure
environmental model.

Certainly institutional racist discrimination has had a profound effect on the standard of living of African-Americans which also effects IQ score. For you to twist this in to simply blaming White people for lower Black IQ score is a fallacious appeal to victim mentality. There are a variety of factors at work which have nothing to do with genetics (what you want the cause to be).

Strawman.

Try something a little more tenable like segregating schools and wealthier schools getting more funding and thus higher educational standards than poorer schools. Since desegregation Black test scores have improved. The case at Brown vs. The Board of Education was proven. Better schools = better students. Despite desegregation it's still a fact that inner city youth get bussed on average to schools of poorer quality than students who live in more affluent areas. Blacks are disproportionately poor due to the legacy of slavery, segregation and Jim Crow; racist discrimination by White Americans who controlled the institutions and treated Blacks as second class citizens for around 100 years. Conditions have gotten better but haven't been completely reversed.

For you to sit there and talk about segregating toilets, ignoring the real issue is incredibly ignorant. In fact I don't accept that you're that ignorant you know better than that. You're being deliberately dishonest by acting like segregation entailed no more than separating races by things that have nothing to do with education. Segregation in schools, housing and jobs is a well-known and important fact.

Your ideological predecessors resisted desegregation of schools tooth and nail because they knew it would change America and was a step in the right direction towards social equality.

View attachment 27434




Why are you trying to ignore historical facts?

He said that the heritability of intelligence is about 0.50 meaning it could be higher or lower depending on the source. That's not a gaffe that's an accurate statement. Your own source estimates a range of 50%-70%.

You're appealing to authority here. Graves has proven himself to be literate in the field of psychology. He doesn't present himself as an expert on psychology he only speaks on the relevant issues of heritability and genetics which is related to his field (evolutionary genetics). You haven't shown that Graves comment is inconsistent with the scientific literature only confirmed it.

I have told you before that I accept that intelligence is highly heritable within populations and families but this fact gives us no implications about between group heritability.

How about coming from poorer countries where the education quality is lower. That also begs the question, if you accept that East Asians are smarter than Whites then how do you explain the lower IQ score and standard of living of Native Americans and Latinos? Native Americans are the closest derivative geographic population of Northeast Asians. If we accept Rushton and Lynn's evolutionary arguments (remember I don't) then Native Americans should have equal IQs since their ancestors would have been subject to the same environmental conditions that produced superior East Asian intellect. Latinos are a hybrid population between Europeans and Native Americans. They too should have higher IQs regardless of which populations is smarter. Lower IQ Latinos and Native Americans only support my environmental theory.

No racialist has ever given a credible explanation for this.

 

Liar. You clearly disagreed with me when I said precision and accuracy had different meanings in the field of science.

You're now trying save face and change what really happened by gas lighting.

Just like how you 'refute' evidence, or your fraud and discredited scholars are never refuted. It's only in your imagination where this occurs.

Here you go, liar; I clearly state precision and accuracy had different meanings in the field of science, and you were trying to tell me otherwise.

I wrote:

You reply:

You couldn't be honest if your life depended on it.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=350804&page=23&p=1063848323#post1063848323

How many times do you need to be exposed lying like the frauds you cite?

You're dishonest to the core.

 

Really? You've shown how similar Native Americans are to East Asians?

 

Could it be because Native Americans are descended from about 80 individuals that crossed the Bering Strait then lived in a relatively low population density for about 20,000 years?

No, I'm sure that would result in exactly the same genetic intelligence.

 

Wasn't the Aztec capitol of Tenochtitlan one of the largest cities in the world (population-wise) at its time?

The bottom line is that Europeans benefited from global trade. Native Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, and other isolated peoples did not. So Europeans came to dominate the world, and other groups did not.

These genetic IQ tests are nonsense. Place an Amazonian in New York City and he'll have a hard time surviving. Place your average (white) American or European in the rain forest, and they'll be dead in a couple of days.

 

Not if you take out the Democrats.........

 

Noone cares. Shut up and stay on topic.

Genetically they are the closest derivative geographic population having only diverged from Northeast Asians about 16,000 years ago.

How would low population density result in a population with lower average IQ? The ancestors of Native Americans were either subject to the same evolutionary selection pressure that boosted Northeast Asian intelligence or they weren't.

Your explanation ignores the fact that South Americans had advanced civilizations. What is your explanation for Southeast Asians also having lower average IQs than Northeast Asians? For that matter if intelligence determines the wealth of nations then why is the standard of living in South Korea so much better than North Korea? They're both Koreans. Why the difference?

 

What does that have to do with East Asians having higher IQ than Europeans?

 

You mean I pointed out you're a liar and deceiver, and will continue to do so.

That didn't answer my question. To which Mongoloid population are Native Americans most closely related?

- - - Updated - - -

Strange. Low IQ minorities tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

 

Just like Low IQ White people flock to the GOP......

 

You're just being a racist jackass as usual. I thought I told you to shut up.

Northeast Asians. I already said that. Chinese, Koreans and Japanese.

Liberals are more intelligent than conservatives.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

 

Is Psycholojew Today a reliable source or a lying mass produced Jewrag?

 

I have said this before, and I'll say it again... so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing what? What does it matter if one race is more or less intelligent than another. What does this prove? What do we do about it?

 

Do you know what a mutation is?

 

We simply recognize that there would be different outcomes, employment, wages, poverty, education, crime ect. That these out comes are not automatically a sign of racism, that there wont be perfect equality between individuals, families or even races. That race based laws to boost some races over others is simply racist.

 

106, setting the bar pretty high there. People with an IQ of 106 should be setting all of our policy goals, don't you agree? How dare anyone argue with someone who is statistically likely to be 5% better at shaping triangles into squares or reading a paragraph about turtles than the average person is?

 

Where are the mounds of scientific studies showing Blacks and whites don't have equal intelligence? Show the studies showing that melatonin correlates to intelligence. Maybe the OP[or anyone else] should not ask for proof of what he doubts, but prove what he believes.

 

Literally no academic psychologist disputes the existence of a racial IQ gap.

 

Let me ask you this. Is giving someone who is at a disadvantage a boost so they can compete at the same level of someone else a bad thing, like letting a blind person take a test in braille when everyone has to take the test the regular way?

 

I've already explained this and tests have always been done on people already in organized school settings with experience doing pencil and paper testing. You're assigning education a far greater role in IQ testing than it actually plays.

First of all, you aren't saying the source of this copy and paste. "Methodological flaws" were claimed by Nisbett as a means of discarding the validity of the test, which were addressed in the JJ Lee paper I already noted that destroyed Nisbett's fallacious reasoning and stretching of data. http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

1.2. Adoption studies

Nisbett takes aim at behavioral-genetic designs other than the study of twins – in particular, the studies of biologically unrelated
adoptive relatives summarized in Table 1. But his arguments here are just as unsound.

1.2.1. Restriction of range

Nisbett correctly points out that inadequate sampling of poorer families may lead to underestimates of environmental effects, but
he applies this point far too broadly. Restriction of range is a potential problem in studies of twins as well as adoptees. It is not, however, a plausible objection to MISTRA. After correction for the Flynn Effect, the standard deviation of WAIS IQ in the MISTRA twins was 14.8 – very close to that of the norming sample. In addition, the standard deviations of the FES scores were substantially greater than those obtained in their norming sample, which should have made environmental effects more readily detectable. As previously mentioned, however, these effects were estimated to be vanishingly small. Moreover, there have been some studies of entire twin cohorts from a single country born in particular years (Benyamin, Wilson, Whalley, Visscher, & Deary, 2005; Tambs, Sundet, Magnus, & Berg, 1989). Although the twins in one of these studies were only 11 years old, the results still support a heritability of approximately .70. Nisbett cites a paper by Stoolmiller (1999) claiming that restriction of range leads to underestimates of environmental effects in studies of biologically unrelated adoptive relatives. Even given the evidence available at the time of its writing, however, Stoolmiller’s argument suffers from several flaws pointed out by Loehlin and Horn (2000). A recent study found additional evidence that undermines the general argument invoking restriction of range (McGue et al., 2007). Although adopting households in Minnesota were indeed found to be less variable in many measures of environmental quality than non-adopting households, the restriction of range did not account for the IQ correlation between adolescent siblings being higher in biological than in adoptive families. In fact, corrections for range restriction increased the correlation in adoptive families by a mere .01. The regression coefficient of offspring IQ on parental SES in 242 adoptive families was statistically insignificant and in any case estimated to be four times smaller than the corresponding coefficient in biological families. Since regression coefficients are expressed on the scales of the relevant variables, restriction of range does not affect them. The authors concluded that adoption studies provide valid estimates of IQ variance attributable to rearing environment for the ‘‘broad middle class.”

Nisbett’s criticism of this study is quite weak. He makes a fair point that individuals living with two or more of their own children
have higher rates of college graduation than the general population. But he goes on to argue that ‘‘the nonadoptive families
who participated in the study were of higher SES and were probably more stable than nonadoptive families in general. As we will
see later, heritabilities for such high-SES families are substantially higher than for the population at large” (Nisbett, 2009, p. 239). This is quite a departure from what the authors actually reported. The difference in rate of college education between non-adopting
mothers who participated in the study (43.8%) and non-adopting mothers who did not participate (28.6%) was the sole statistically
significant difference in comparisons of participating and non-participating families with respect to the following variables: education,
occupational status, percent of original parents who remained married, and the number of parent-reported behavioral
disorders in eligible offspring. Additionally, in a comparison with a random sample from Census 2000, the authors found small differences in percentages of fathers (47% vs. 44%) and mothers (39% vs. 44%) with college degrees. Contrary to what Nisbett implies, there is little reason to think that a different sampling scheme would have led to substantially higher estimates of environmental effects on IQ.

Yet again, you engage in circular argumentation as well as a fallacy of proof by assertion. Victim mentality is assigning blame to a group based on a scientific argument that does not exist and thus that you cannot defend such as it does not exist. You are unwilling to look at any other potential causes but continue to assert the validity of an argument that doesn't scientifically have any footing.

Black Americans have a higher standard of living than most Chinese, who on average score a few points higher than whites. You're pretending that blacks have bottom-rung living, and this is blindness. Do you think those Chinese have better schools than whites in Beverly Hills?

There is nothing stated here in terms of supporting information for your assertions, thus there nothing to address. You are blaming an entire race of people for poor black performance with zero evidence whatsoever, let alone anything remotely resembling anything with a whiff of scientific consensus or even moral consistency, and you do this with a straight face as if people will accept it.

That's racist.

Show us where this is the case. The claim is yours and thus so is the burden of proof. If you're saying that blacks can't learn around white people, that's a rather odd thing to say. Both of these off-the-cuff unscientific explanations center around collective race blame, and not science. you argument is completely off the rails in its assertion that education has this kind of an impact on IQ. European Jews did just fine with "institutionalized" segregation.

As far as your environmental argument goes, you have moved from 1) Sub-Saharan blacks had an unfriendly climate which is why their IQs were lower, to 2) Sub-Saharan Africans didn't have the tools to establish more adequate methods of living and thus have they have lower IQs, and now to 3) Blacks don't have enough white people around and white tax dollars to get ahead and thus they have lower IQs.

All I can say is... Ouch.

You're assigning educational proximity to whites on the basis of nothing more than correlation/causation fallacy. This fails to address the Flynn Effect and that the test score gap - as I already showed with a source that weighed this for some 20 years - remains without substantial change. (Why did you ignore that?) Flynn actually traced his effect going back to the early 20th Century, so it was well before desegregation, which is further evidence this claim has no legs. Whites also showed gains in this area, and as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong), they didn't Jim Crow themselves. That you invoke Jim Crow is why I mentioned your assertion that apparently black IQ was hampered by colored-only toilets. You're claiming an avalanche of scapegoats for low black performance without substantiating them in any means other than invoking a racial spin-narrative based on Marxist class analysis, which explains why you have no data to substantiate this.

Where is the science???

Airing out a racial grievance laundry list is not a scientific justification for the claims you are making, and does not belong on this thread.

And instead of responding to the multiple evidences I stated in my previous post which shows that you, Nisbett, and now Graves are full of it, you don't bother attempting to defend your position on a scientific level and instead go off on a long-winded racial resentment rant. You're making a slurry bomb of assertions with zero substantiation and invoke a historical narrative to fill the gaps. I just want to know why you think black people can't be smart without white people. You have access to libraries, schools, etc. That you think American schools have such an impact on IQ simply means you have no concept in schools in third world countries, where plenty of people learn more and perform better than American blacks. I once had a trigonometry professor from India. She said American students were spoiled. Why? In India that had huge classes - 100 students or more - and NO TEXTBOOKS at all. They were given a list of books that went along with the syllabus and told to go to the library. They also didn't have the multiple tests and quizzes throughout the semester to help students. They had one test - the final. All lecture, huge classes, little to no class time with students, no textbooks, and one exam. THAT is disadvantaged. That professor has a masters in mathematics from the University of Colorado.

So please, cry me a river.

I'm sorry. Black average IQ and correlated scholastic performances are not low because white people didn't invite them in and coddle them. This is a hilarious assertion and you're insulting your own race in making it while calling ME the racist. You are saying that black IQ is dependent on outsiders giving them a better environment as if they have no basic intelligence to take initiative to use the countless tools around them. Do I have more faith in black people than you?

The consistent theme in all of your arguments is that someone, something, on the outside is to blame for poor black performance. Always. This is unscientific and reeks of politics and racism.

Who are my "ideological predecessors"? What ideology do I allegedly espouse that you're going off on a tangential rant about? Something about how I am "racist" because I do not accept your blaming white people for black performance?

Too bad.

Race card. Good work.

This is about science and what it reveals. This isn't a historical racial grievance section nor a place to air out black rage. All you're doing is dropping the scientific argument since you have an inability to defend it and are retreating to grievance rhetoric, which happens to be the basis of your entire philosophy anyway.

In sum: BLAME WHITEY.

He said it that as if it was established consensus on a universal level. It's a low end of the range which some actually attribute more than 70%. Rushton put it about 80%, so even he was not a 100% genetics theorist. As I showed you, in the Swedish study it was the single attribute with the highest level of heritability over other heritable attributes.

It's unfortunate you don't know what the appeal to authority fallacy means since you think I'm the one doing it.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1.Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2.Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3.Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Thus you are appealing to authority by citing a biologist on matters of psychology which are far outside his range of expertise. I already cited specific psychological sources which show that his claims are inaccurate at best. That you sit and respond by re-asserting your previous claim that he was solid without lifting a finger to defend his statements in the light of specific sources from studies and psychology textbooks is a cop out, an appeal to authority fallacy, and fallacy of proof by assertion. I cited specific in-use psychological textbooks and you're ignoring that I did that. Address the literature directly or do not bother responding.

Except when the data shows that adoption studies don't come out to your pleasing. Neither you nor Graves have responded to that intelligence's heritability increases with age. Graves seems to think it's a static 50%.

Because not everyone started out in a poor area with no education. This argument is so full of holes, I could rinse spaghetti noodles in it.

There is no question begged here. You're acting as if I'm a 100% hereditarian and are trying to attack me as such. I am not and never have claimed to be. Kindly stop projecting.

- - - Updated - - -

He should note that EgalitarianJay doesn't deny it - and he's black.

 

Not only is this a complete lack of knowledge about psychology, but it also indicates you aren't reading this thread. We have a black poster here who acknowledges this gap exists but takes issue on the cause of the gap.

I've never seen anyone claim "melatonin" correlates to intelligence. You mean melanin, as melatonin is a chemical found in nature. This is a total straw man as nobody claimed either one.

I find it odd you demand proof that IQ averages are not equal across populations when your clear belief is that they are - and you were never given a shred of proof of this before you accepted that belief, so why wait to ask now?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I've heard this racial conspiracy theory many times. Oddly, it's just a stink bomb that is lobbed into the middle of a discussion without a shred of substantiating evidence accompanying it.