Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by DarkSkies, Jul 29, 2015.

  1. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Exactly......he is just another politically correct pseudo researcher who has been promoted by the liberals...ya know the ones who have done their best to interfere, censor and downright prevent genetic research. The advances that have been and are being made in the field of genetic research are because a few very brave scientists were willing to risk their careers in the name of science.

    Political correctness dominates most of universities....a great tragedy>>>>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/pc-educ.html

    http://www.amren.com/news/2014/12/j...-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-i-exist/
     
  2. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a FACT. Didn't you write to Nesbitt and he gave the response that it wasn't being done by anyone in his field??

    The real players in the world of science use DNA profiling because it has shown to be so valuable in so many medical problems that are closely linked to ethnic groups. The human eye is part of the brain. In a small part of the eye, in the retina alone there are over 100 different types of retinal cells that all have unique genes to create them. Then you have all kinds of retinal diseases. One of them is RP. There are over 100 different types of RP that are inherited along racial lines.

    Are the psuedo-scientists so ignorant of the human brain that they think the parts of the brain dealing with cognition work by miraculous powers differently that every other part of the brain?

    And Rushton and Jensen have bills to pay. They do not want to be in the unemployment lines.
     
  3. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Nisbett said that he was done with the IQ business and wasn't competent to do such a study but that he wouldn't be surprised if someone had already done it.

    I've looked around and no one has done it but that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to avoid doing such a test.

    I'd like to see a source for that.

    The racialists are the ones engaging in pseudoscience because they advance these theories of racial differences in intelligence without having a proper understand of population genetic theory which indicates that their theories are impossible and unreasonable.

    Nonsense. Rushton and Jensen dedicated most of their lives to the claim that their were racial differences in intelligence and compiled as such data as they could to support their position. You yourself linked to their "30 years of research on Race Differences" paper. There is certainly no reason why they would avoid using modern DNA profiling and other modern methods to support their conclusions. So why didn't they do this? You need to stop pointing the finger at Egalitarians and saying that they are not using modern science to support their conclusions when scholars who agree with you were not willing to do the same thing.
     
  4. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your lines of evidence are usually claims I've challenged for the umpteenth time.

    So Nisbett doesn't have data after age 15?

    How is Nisbett able to claim enriched learning environments will significantly positively affect children a decade after leaving these programs, or by the time they are college age?

    There's not too much optimism as head start programs in general have not shown to boost IQ in the long term.

    Rushton plays down these enriched learning environment programs based on their prohibitive costs, underwhelming results and short-term gain:

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/advocacy-by-omission-richard-e-nisbetts-intelligence-and-how-to-get-it

    This is an incoherent abstract that explains nothing.

    This conjecture is incoherent on its face. Anthropologists know squat of the 'general cognitive ability' and 'survival strategy' of humans during the Pleistocene Epoch, and human intelligence is believed to have undergone increases in the last 5,000 years alone.

    There's no evidence of human intelligence evolving differently and yet Nisbett and Flynn would readily admit some cultures produce higher IQ peoples than others.

    How is one to explain this incoherence?

    Is the author unaware human evolutionary pressure is based on their environment, including, culture?

    These are the adoption studies Rushton cites and notes Nisbett omitting:

    A low positive correlation does not support my argument? So something that supports my argument does not support my argument?

    You do understand what correlation means, right?

    Does that, therefore, mean a low positive correlation for your argument does not support your argument?

    How do you work that novel claim?

    Interesting Nisbett would omit, once more. This time Nisbett omits updated work in favor of older studies which have not been replicated.

    http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010 Review of Nisbett.pdf

    So there's inequality which apparently affects how fast and far Blacks are able to recite numbers backwards, but amazingly on one form of cognition test Blacks outperform Whites who outperform Asians?

    Please explain the cause for why 'malnourished' and 'deprived' Blacks sometimes perform better than Whites on certain reaction time tests, who in turn perform better than Northeast Asians?

    And how are Northeast Asians able to outperform Whites on numerous other tests as Whites have a general advantage over Northeast Asians in terms of nutrition and enriched environment?

    Curious and curiouser.
     
  5. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Go look through their paper. They cite modern science which is in complete agreement with their views.

    In fact, Rushton highlights how much ground environmentalists have ceded in the past 30 years since the time of Jew Stephen Jay Gould's shoddy 'research'.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/advocacy-by-omission-richard-e-nisbetts-intelligence-and-how-to-get-it
     
  6. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't really challenge them you cherry-pick what to respond to and ignore the rest.



    He said he's not aware of any follow up reports on improvement in Black IQ from childhood to age 15 but there is research that shows intervention programs working for students of all ages including in college.
    I would say that boosting them from childhood to teenage years is evidence of a long term improvement.

    I really don't take Rushton seriously. You need a better source than that quack.


    It's not incoherent you just didn't understand it.

    And you based that on what? Harpending's gibberish? Anthropologists are able to assess human survival strategies during the Pleistocene Epoch based on the archaeological record. Read the studies I cited.

    Human cultures develop based on the decisions of people within that culture not genetic differences between populations. Also you're not addressing anything I said about population genetics and evolutionary biology. You need to read the studies I cited and provide feedback.


    Nisbett did not omit the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. He addressed it in detail and Rushton is a good one to talk about sins of omission considering the numerous studies that Nisbett points out he did not address.



    A correlation is the statistical measure to which two attributes show a tendency to vary together. The higher the correlation coefficient the stronger the relationship and the lower the correlation coefficient the weaker the relationship. I showed you multiple studies showing the correlation between White ancestry and high Black IQ to be as low as 0.20, some as low as 0.01 and even a negative correlation. The lower the correlation the more unlikely two attributes are to be related. A correlation of 0.20 means that 80% of the time there is no relationship. If we consider that there were thousands of Black children with high IQs sampled and 80% of the time there was no relationship between their IQ and White ancestry that means that there is a very weak relationship between high Black IQ and White ancestry. It's almost nonexistent. The few times there was a correlation can be seen as a statistical anomaly. If the stats were reversed you would have a strong case for a relationship between high Black IQ and White ancestry but as they are you don't. The evidence clearly supports the environmental model.



    All Rushton can do is say that the studies are old. He offers no critical analysis of the research. But as Nisbett notes, what is the half-life of a finding?

    The studies that Rushton quotes are not racial admixture studies. They show that Lighter-skinned Blacks average higher IQs than darker-skinned Blacks but Nisbett already addressed the fact that this can be attributed to greater socialization in American society on the part of lighter-skinned Blacks. Rushton is also a hypocrite for dismissing Nisbett's studies as old and then citing a brain weight study by Bean dated to 1906!


    What do you make of the Black-White IQ gap being virtually eliminated when controlling for environment?

    I would have to read the study for myself.

    I believe that cultural differences are the reason. Northeast Asians have higher educational standards than Westerners.


    I've read their paper. It's trash. And Jew Stephen Jay Gould? We all know that you are a racist, Neo-Nazi with an ideological axe to grind but thanks for confirming that. Rushton was a racist quack. Of course he would spin Nisbett's conclusions to act as if they support him.

    You can watch Nisbett's presentation to see the many findings he has made which refute Rushton's contentions.

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

    I watched the video it's very good. I still need to read Nisbett's book to have a more informed discussion on his research.
     
  7. DevilMayhem666

    DevilMayhem666 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I already showed you a link explaining that in a thread of mine.

    No, it was. In another study in the 70s(sixth page) and don't forget the CAT test in the UK. The x-chromosome link in IQ heritability supports this as well.
     
  8. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean the cat tests I responded to with an in-depth link?

    Your paper used the term later adulthood which it defined at a certain age. That doesn't mean adulthood or late adulthood have the same parameters for other psychologists.
     
  9. DevilMayhem666

    DevilMayhem666 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You said it was about the GCSE test. Going through the page it mentions little to nothing about the CAT test and was mainly about the GCSE...

    It said 60% for adulthood, 80% for later adulthood, and back to 60% in elderly age.
     
  10. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it is a conspiracy not to do DNA-based IQ testing of ethnic groups----because NO ones dares do them else they be burned at the stake by Leftists ruling the roost in these fields.

    They are doing DNA testing in every other field of human study, so it is because of the prevailing political ideologies of researchers like Nisbett, that they refuse to do honest, viable studies with common DNA technology available today.

    It's not just one gene that causes a flat nose, yellow skin, kinky hair or blue eyes. So there isn't going to be one or two genes that allow some groups of people to have superior intelligence or behavioral traits. There isn't just some single "warrior gene" that makes Blacks more violent in every part of the world they exist. So by looking at how other brain diseases operate, like Retinitis Pigmentosa, one can imagine hundreds of genetic factors are at play:

    http://www.news-medical.net/health/Retinitis-Pigmentosa-Genetics.aspx

    You've heard the fable of the mice deciding to tie a bell around the cat's neck---the plan is sound---but none of them do it because of the personal risk. That is why there has not been anyone openly doing these DNA IQ tests---if they are in fact being done at all.

    What government agency or university, or corporation will fund it? What doctors would do it? And why would dishonest hacks like Nisbett want to have their theories go down in flames---as they almost certainly know deep down they are wrong anyway?
     
  11. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A positive correlation supports my position, hence the term positive.

    You're innumerate to suggest a positive correlation does not support my position.

    A zero correlation does not support any position and a negative correlation rejects my position and favors yours.

    The studies you've cited actually support the hereditarian model as long as they are greater than zero. The magnitude determines the degree or strength of correlation but nonetheless supports my stance.

    Otoh, your ridiculous claim would mean a low negative correlation (based on my stance) does not actually support your position.

    Rushton doesn't just say the studies nisbett cited are old; he cites re-evaluations showing the original studies are not reproducible, and, indeed, show the opposite of what was claimed.
     
  12. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You can keep wearing your tinfoil hat and believe that there is a conspiracy to avoid DNA-based IQ testing. Meanwhile there are older studies that indicate that your belief is false and those studies have not been falsified.


    Your claim is obviously false. The lower the correlation the less strength you have for your position. The higher the correlation the more strength you have for your position. If the correlation between White Ancestry and high Black IQ was 0.80 that would mean there is an 80% chance of there being a relationship between the two attributes meaning they are highly correlated. If the correlation was 0.50 there is a 50% chance of a relationship. It could go either way meaning they are moderately correlated. Anything below 0.50 is a moderate to low correlation with 0.20 being on the low end of the spectrum and 0.01 being extremely low, meaning the chance of a relationship is highly unlikely. An absolute zero correlation means there is absolutely no chance of a relationship and a negative correlation means an exact opposite relationship could be possible (e.g. White ancestry actually makes Blacks dumber).

    So how does one interpret the actual figures given? Most of the figures are between 0.01 and 0.20, that is statistically very weak supporting the environmental model over the hereditarian model by a magnitude of 80%-99%. By your logic if I use the example of betting odds lets say there there is a big fight coming up. The fighter that I want to win is the 2-1 favorite. The fighter you want to win is the underdog. We don't know who is actually going to win but the probability supports my fighter. By your logic no matter how low the probability be it 2-1, 10-1, 20-1 because your fighter still has a chance he is actually the favorite! It doesn't work like that and correlation doesn't work like that.

    Rushton did not cite any re-evaluations of the studies presented by Nisbett. He just said they were old and hadn't been reproduced and that Jensen and Loehlin dealt with them years ago without getting in to any specifics. He cited alternative studies related to skin color and IQ but weren't actual racial admixture studies. In this situation the studies cited by Nisbett logically stand unless they have been definitively discredited. Modern DNA testing could provide the possibility of composing tests to see if prior conclusions could be replicated.
     
  13. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Because the iq of the elderly is relevant ?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Because the iq of the elderly is relevant ?
     
  14. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're totally confused. Any correlation coefficient above 0 supports my claim. A 0 correlation supports neither position and a negative correlation supports an opposite conclusion.
    Look up correlation coefficients sometime. The midpoint - neutral - is 0, not 0.50; that is why the range is 1 to -1.
     
  15. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't say 0.50 was neutral I'm simply saying that the higher the correlation coefficient the stronger the relationship between two attributes and the lower the correlation coefficient the weaker the relationship between two attributes. A correlation of 0.20 is on the low end of the spectrum and 0.01 is extremely low. A negative correlation does support an opposite conclusion but the lower a positive correlation is the more it supports my conclusion. That's why Nisbett presented this research in the first place. Do you think he doesn't understand correlation values either?
     
  16. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A lower correlation supports your argument only relative to a higher correlation. Any study with positive correlation for white admixture and iq supports my position more than yours.

    A 0.20 correlation coefficient is not on the low end of the spectrum; it is on the low end of positive iq.

    Positive correlation does not support nisbett's argument. I am saying you do not understand statistics and have incorrectly claimed a 0.20 correlation is on the low end of the correlation spectrum - it's above the midpoint, in fact.

    What you're arguing, in fact, illogical. How does it make sense that only 0.25 of the range would support my argument whereas you have 0.75 of the range?
     
  17. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You're the one being illogical. You're acting as if I need there to be a negative correlation to support my position. No, a negative correlation would support an opposite conclusion like White ancestry making Blacks dumber but a positive correlation only supports your position if it is high. The lower it is the less strength there is for your position.
     
  18. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Any positive correlation shows white heritage in blacks is positively linked to black iq.

    Feel free disputing that. If this is difficult for you, try reading about deriving a correlation coefficient from a tendline.
     
  19. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll tell you what. Since you won't give up on the issue I'm going to email Nisbett himself for clarification as well as an expert statistician and post their emails should I get a reply.

    I've already researched correlation and various websites support what I'm saying. A correlation of zero means no relationship. The lower the correlation the more unlikely two attributes are to be related. The higher the correlation the more likely two attributes are to be related. A negative correlation means the attributes are very unrelated. It's that simple.
     
  20. PreteenCommunist

    PreteenCommunist Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Female
    How does intelligence quotient demonstrate anything about black vs. white people's intelligence, anyway? It's a ridiculous, oversimplifying test which tries to quantify the unquantifiable.
     
  21. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You mean your research confirms what I've told you? A positive correlation tells you white heritage results in higher iq for blacks. It doesn't tell you whether the correlation is due to environment or heredity - only that it is there.

    The lower positive correlation can be more easily dismissed, however, as statistical noise, or other reasons.

    Edit: a negative correlation means white heritage would be inversely related to black iq - not 'very unrelated.'

    Only a 0 correlation coefficient tells you your independent variable is unrelated to your dependent variable.
     
  22. rayznack

    rayznack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    3,033
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Iq predicts life achievements in a general population.

    People with higher iq in a nation have higher rates of education attainment, higher employment, and lower crime rates, etc. So, iq actually tells a lot about groups of people.
     
  23. ElDiablo

    ElDiablo Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Messages:
    5,193
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In Memory of Phil Rushton by Jared Taylor

    Before I ever met John Philippe Rushton I saw him on the Geraldo Rivera television program. It was in 1989, shortly after his ground-breaking work on race differences first began to get international attention. One of the guests was that weasel Barry Mehler of Ferris State University, who has tried to make a career of denouncing scientists if he doesn’t like their research.

    Prof. Mehler could hardly control himself. “I am trained in unmasking academic racism,” he shouted, “and you are a racist!” Phil smiled and replied quietly, “I am an academic.”

    Another guest was a black man named Charles King, whose understanding of science was even spottier than Prof. Mehler’s. “Are you saying I am your inferior?” he thundered. “No,” replied Phil, “I am saying we are different.” The program was a tour de force of reasonable explanations and unflappable manners on the one hand, and fulmination on the other.

    I met Phil not long after that impressive performance, and through many years of friendship until his death two days ago, the qualities I saw on that program always impressed me. Phil had an intense desire to know the truth, to understand our species in all its complexity. He was also polite to a fault, even in the face of the vilest provocation. But it is as a man of science that he will be remembered—a great thinker in the distinguished lineage of Francis Galton, Charles Spearman, and Arthur Jensen. In a sane world, Canada would recognize him as the national treasure he was.

    John Philippe Rushton was born in 1943 in Bournemouth, England, and received a Ph.D. in 1973 from the London School of Economics for work in the development of altruism in children. In 1974 he emigrated to Canada, and in 1977 he took a post at the University of Western Ontario, where he became a full professor in 1985.

    Phil’s first important scientific contributions grew out of his studies of altruism in children. During a sabbatical year he spent in Berkeley, California, in 1981, he could not help noticing that in a multi-racial society, people care most about their own group. Hispanics supported recognition of Spanish as an official language, Jews were interested in what was happening in Israel, and blacks associated with and supported each other. This led Phil to develop Genetic Similarity Theory, according to which people are most altruistic towards those to whom they are biologically close, and less altruistic and even hostile to those who are biologically distant. He studied how people sense genetic similarity, and the consequences this has for society.

    During this period he began to investigate race differences—in particular race differences in intelligence and brain size—but broadened his research to include all physiological and behavioral race differences. This led to his ground-breaking application of r-K theory to human races—and, of course, to his demonization.

    Phil’s crucial insight was to realize that different races show consistent patterns that reflect different reproductive strategies. At one extreme are East Asians, who are the most intelligent, have the largest brains, show the most sexual restraint, develop most slowly, live the longest, and are most law-abiding. This is consistent with having few children but taking very good care of them. At the other extreme are black Africans, whose behavior is consistent with less investment in larger numbers of children. On virtually every scale of r-K behavior (that is, on a scale of high-investment versus low-investment child-rearing), whites fall somewhere between Asians and blacks. Phil meticulously documented and argued this theory in his brilliant 1995 book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior.

    Phil had been publishing his ideas well before this, however, and in 1989, the Toronto Star started a campaign to have him fired from his job at the University of Western Ontario. The paper accused him of “racism,” and noted that “there are well established procedures for the dismissal of tenured staff.” The rest of the media joined in a chorus howling for Phil’s scalp. In February that year, Premier David Peterson of Ontario telephoned the president of the University of Western Ontario demanding that Phil be fired.

    Thugs disrupted Phil’s classes, and shouted abuse at him whenever he walked by. Once he found “Racists pig live here” [sic] scrawled on the door of his office. In March 1989, the Attorney General of Ontario began a police investigation to see whether Phil had broken laws banning the promotion of “hatred against any identifiable group.” A finding of guilt could have meant up to two years in prison, but eight months later, the Attorney General announced that Phil’s theories were “loony but not criminal.”

    The University of Western Ontario could find no legal way to fire Phil, so it barred him from the classroom and ordered him to record lectures on video tape for students to watch in private. Phil managed to persuade a faculty grievance committee that this was absurd. When he resumed classroom teaching—amid much media whooping and student protest—thugs repeatedly disrupted his courses and even assaulted him. Through it all, Phil never lost his temper, never threw a punch—and, most importantly, never backed down. Over the years, his enemies gradually retreated to a baffled state of relative silence, while Phil continued to publish top-flight research on race differences.

    As Phil moved into forbidden territory, his funding disappeared, and he asked the Pioneer Fund for help. Harry Weyher, who had been running the fund since 1958, gave Phil the support that made his best work possible. After a close and fruitful association with the fund, it was natural that Phil himself should become president of the fund on Weyher’s death in 2002. For 10 years, Phil continued Pioneer’s quiet but invaluable grants in support of race-related research.

    Phil also had a close association with American Renaissance. He spoke at no fewer than six AR conferences, and was invariably the main attraction. The first time he spoke, in 1996, a fascinated audience kept him on his feet for more than an hour past the scheduled end of his talk. Phil answered question after question with his trademark combination of patience, erudition, and charm. Afterwards, he told me his legs were aching, but that it was a pleasure to speak to such a well-informed group.

    Phil had agreed to speak at the conference we held in February this year, but he withdrew, saying he feared his health would not allow him to travel. I knew he had been in and out of the hospital with Addison’s disease, which attacks the immune system, but I hardly expected him to leave us so soon. Phil always had ideas for research; I grieve to think he will never be able to do that work.

    Whatever Phil’s enemies may say of him—and we know exactly what they will say—those of us who had the great privilege of his friendship know that he was first and always a seeker of the truth. It was the quality of the data he cared about, not whether they fit his or anyone else’s theories.

    And, of course, it was precisely because he pursued the truth that he was hated. Those who have never been slandered in the press, never been denounced by “scholars,” never assaulted by “anti-racists,” or never shunned by colleagues do not know the courage it takes to endure it year after year. Phil Rushton steered a straight course through the hurricane, and he did it with unparalleled dignity. He was as principled as a man as he was brilliant as a scientist, and our world is greatly diminished without him.

    J. Philippe Rushton, 1943 – 2012

    Below is the classic 1989 debate between Phil Rushton and Canadian zoologist David Suzuki on race and genetics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i9FGHtfnYWY
     
  24. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    We'll see what the expert has to say....

    IQ correlates with these variables but it doesn't tell you the underlying cause for why these variables are related.
     
  25. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Taylor gushing over Rushton is disgusting. I'm sure he misses his racist friend.

    Check out these video debates where Rushton gets thrashed:

    [video=youtube;zF9hOY6OzoQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF9hOY6OzoQ[/video]

    [video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]
     

Share This Page