Black and white nationalism is a hustle and a scam

Hi EJ. Did you forget to support your assertions?

 

We've already debated this subject at length. You're not going to accept my arguments even though I am right so it is time to move on.

 

LOL ...

 

I see the futility of arguing back and fourth with Rayznack over this. He's not going to concede the point. If he thinks a 20% genetic impact for brain volume differences is significant when he seems to agree with Rushton that the Black-White IQ gap is 80% genetically determined and his best argument for this disparity is basically saying, "Well wait until they find the genes related to IQ they'll come up with more differences" without explaining what aspects of phenotype we can expect them to look at then he is beyond reasoning with. I have clearly shown that past studies on brain size were not controlled and not comparable. He either doesn't understand this or doesn't want to. Even though I clearly laid out Graves' criticism of Rushton for misrepresenting Broman et al. (1987) Rayznack pretends he doesn't understand how Rushton was refuted. He includes Beals in his list of scholars who have never done their own studies on race and brain size when Beals et al. (1984) is the most comprehensive study on cranial capacity comparisons world wide. Ofcourse Rushton misrepresented the findings of this study and Razynack doesn't like the conclusions. He claims no study published in the last 50 years supports equal brain size for Blacks and Whites when Lieberman presented 10 that did in his "Changing Racial Hierachies" chart. Apparently Razynack doesn't understand that I don't need a study showing a physical measurement that is exactly the same between two groups to prove my point. All I need is scientific evidence that there is no reliable systematic measure that makes comparison between populations valid. Several studies have shown this including the 10 listed by Lieberman. I am not claiming assumption as proof as Razynack claimed only that the standard for control and comparability between studies has not been met.

This reminds me of when you and Zed from Stumbleinn said that r/K selection theory had enough validity to justify Rushton's argument and cited a study by Reznick which Zed claimed supported your argument. When I ran it by Graves he explained the futility of arguing with racists because they're never going to let you win the argument even when they have been shown to be wrong.

Ofcourse when I asked Reznick himself about his article Graves was shown to be correct.

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.

Source: Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience by Rory Coker

In any case I'm working on creating a thread related to the subject of brain size and race so if Rayznack wants to continue the debate there once the thread is created he can.

 

You accuse your opponents of relying on second hand facts...while relying on second hand facts?

Buh-bye...*facepalm*

 

Do you have evidence that Graves is wrong?

 

You have no evidence to reject or modify the studies measuring Black and White brain size. You build your arguments on assumptions and faulty reasoning.

You flee when I point this out to you.

You cannot even defend why you're rejecting/modifying studies when you can't prove the studies unfavorably measured Blacks.

The arguments of Graves, Beals, Lieberman and Tobias are garbage.

No one arguing outside this field would ever take their methods seriously.

The only reason these individuals have made it this far is because they're in the 'anti-racism' industry where shoddy work is allowed to slide.

I'm shocked university professors reject data without hard evidence.

These people are not scholars. They are hucksters.

 

If I'm wrong why is it that your theory isn't taught in academia? Why are the scholars I cite distinguished professors with good reputations while people you cite like Rushton are regarded as quacks?

Why is that?

Are you on the Jewish Conspiracy bandwagon with Mikemikev?

 

He has no evidence to reject the results the studies on brain size.

His methodology is wrong.

How can you automatically assume time of brain measurement was taken unfavorably for Blacks compared to Whites without evidence?

None of your sources ever show there is a gender or age imbalance in any of the studies they reject or modify.

They do not operate by scientific methods.

These people hucksters.

 

Do you need it explained that you can't reject data without hard evidence?

First year university students know this concept.

These professors operate in the 'anti-racism' bubble where their shoddy methods are untouched.

Apply this technique of rejecting data of dozens of studies based on assumptions in any other field and see how far you get.

 

I was talking about Mikemikev's contention that Graves' comment on MacArthur and Wilson was based on "second hand facts."

Graves provided references for all the arguments that he made. If Graves is wrong on that subject then Mikemikev can prove that by showing what he said contradicts MacArthur and Wilson.

As for Graves being a "huckster" can you find anyone in the scientific community with some credibility who agrees? For instance who in the field of biology has ever said that Graves is "not credible" (i.e. fraud, huckster, quack etc.). Show me a paper with a serious critique of his work showing this.

As for brain size again you either don't understand that these old studies were not controlled or comparable or you don't want to. They don't mention the specific controls Tobias listed so their data is invalid. If they don't mention the appropriate methodology then we can't investigate whether or not their measurements are accurate making the studies unreliable.

 

You can't modify these older studies because they weren't 'controlled' for.

You have no proof there was a Black/White gender imbalance so can't attribute that as one of the variables causing the Black/White difference in brain volume.

 

If they don't control for variables relevant to accurate brain measurement then the studies aren't reliable. It's as simple as that.

 

It's actually not as simple as that as you can't assume these differences in variables existed in the studies.

You go one step further by actually claiming these studies do not show differences in black and white brain volume which they do.

 

Just an FYI but Charles Murray's data is online here: https://osf.io/z9cnk/

I would be curious what results you get with his data.

 

I'm not assuming the differences in variables existed only stating that their methodology is unsound therefore their conclusions are not valid. You can't have accurate brain measurement if you don't control for variables relevant to ensuring reliable results. There has been no systematic measure of brain size or volume sufficient to say that there is a hierarchy in size and even accepting the work of scholars like Rushton (who manipulated data, misrepresented studies, used outdated methodologies and ignored critiques of the quality of his sources) the reported brain size differences are far too small to explain racial gaps in IQ even assuming a causal relationship between brain volume and general intelligence.

Lieberman issued 6 criticisms of Rushton's research:

1) Rushton uses “race” despite decades of findings that invalidate it.

2) Rushton’s use of aggregation is invalid.

3) Rushton’s cranioracial variation is contradicted by evolutionary anthropology.

4) Rushton’s collection of brain measurements fails to utilize control variables identified by Tobias.

5) Rushton does not relate environment, nutrition, cranial size, and IQ.

6) Rushton claims to “explain” a vast array of human behavior.



Lieberman cited 10 studies that conclude that there are no racial hierarchies in brain size:

1) Herskovitz, Melville. 1928. The American Negro: A study of racial crossing. New York: Knopf.

2) Boas, Franz. 1938. “Race,” in General anthropology. Edited by Franz Boas, pp. 95–123. New York: D. C. Heath.

3) Kroeber, Alfred l . 1923. Anthropology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

4) Montagu, Ashley. 1960. 3d edition. An introduction to physical anthropology. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas.

5) Tobias, P . V. 1970. Brain-size, grey matter, and race—fact or fiction? American Journal of Physical Anthropology 32:3–26.

6) Gould, Stephen J . 1978. Morton’s ranking of races by cranial capacity. Science 200:503–9.

7) Beals, Kenneth L . , Courtland L. Smith, and Stephen M. Dodd. 1984. Brain size, cranial morphology, and time machines. current anthropology 25:301–15.

8) Montagu, Ashley. 1960. 3d edition. An introduction to physical anthropology. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas.

9) Livingstone, Frank B. 1962. On the nonexistence of human races. Current Anthropology 3:279–81.

10) Brace, C. Loring. 1998. Race and reason: The anthropological case for a common human cognitive condition. General Anthropology 5: 1–48.


Of course you will dismiss all of these scholars as hucksters who reject evidence that you insist is empirically valid. Your fixation on the brain size argument is obviously based on your belief that it is the best evidence of a physical difference between races that could feasibly be related to intelligence. A moderate correlation (0.33) between brain volume and intelligence is not enough to establish that one population is smarter than another because of brain volume differences when you consider that brain size does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation (1,000–2,000 cm[SUP]3[/SUP]) and the reported brain volume differences between races can only account for no more than 20% of the Black-White IQ gap, which is purported to be 80% genetically determined.

I have shown evidence in this thread that there are no racial hierarchies in brain size. That genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association. That when controlling for environmental variables the Black-White IQ gap can be eliminated and that the gap is not immutable as Blacks have made significant gains in IQ score in recent decades. I refuted all three of your claims. I also showed that one of the studies you relied on to claim that research on brain volume and body size supported an Asian > White > Black racial hierarchy was misrepresented by Rushton who manipulated data to support his argument. I presented Graves' critique outlining the faults with Rushton's reasoning. You didn't provide a rebuttal to this.

I think we're done here. Of course you are going to disagree with everything I've said and probably provide another rebuttal riddled with personal attacks but I'm ready to move on to other threads.

 

Now you're changing your argument. You were previously claiming Tobias showed there were no differences between Black and White brain volume after controlling for variables. Now you're saying the studies can't be used because the variables weren't controlled.

Notice the sleight of hand. You were previously claiming research supported your views but have modified this argument after I've pushed you on proving these claims.

Unfortunately, you still cannot reject data simply because you are not aware if these variables were controlled for because you don't even know if any or all the variables were unfavorably measured for one group over another.

What is Rushton's use of aggregation and how is it invalid?

Why would several of Tobias' variables unfavorably affect Blacks over Whites?

How am I to believe post-mortem brain measurement was systematically conducted later for Blacks than Whites?

Why would I believe a gender imbalance for Blacks over Whites?

An age imbalance?

You, Tobias, or both, fail to account for studies which do control for some of these variables. One study measuring head circumference on 40,000 schoolchildren controlled for height and weight and found Asian children had larger head size than White children than Black children despite Asians being shorter and lighter than Whites than Blacks.

Beals found that Whites have larger brain volume than Blacks and northeast Asians have larger brain volume than northern Europeans. His arguments are a red herring since we're comparing these three ethno-racial groups, and his findings support the position that Northeast Asians have larger brain volume than Whites than Blacks.

Neither Stephen J. Gould nor Tobias conducted any study of their own. Both made assumptions and 'fixed' data on these assumptions.

It speaks volume that you would cite either when you know for a fact they did not conduct their own research nor did they have the information to modify past research.

This is testament to your continual dishonesty.

Actually, brain size determines 33% of intelligence within a species. You're both wrong and out of your technical depth.

You actually haven't shown any evidence at all to reject or modify all previous studies which all show Whites having larger brain volume than Blacks.

You build your argument on assumption and have offered no proof or evidence in support of your position.

Because you have not shown a study controlling for all environmental variables that showed equal brain volume for Blacks and Whites, you cannot come to your conclusion that when controlling for environment variables the Black-White brain volume gap is eliminated.

You seem either totally dishonest or technically incompetent to argue these points.

Of course I'm going to ridicule your methodology which is absurdly poor.

You can't even defend how one can dismiss or modify data based on assumption.

 

I was more interested in raw data related to IQ, not human achievements. But I guess this is cool. I have a bit of self-interest in the black achievement. I noticed that for blacks in the USA, the achievements are lacking, but blacks in the USA have a lot more than 2 achievers. And as a jazz fan, while I love Duke Elignton, there are many jazz composers with comparable musical genius. I'm surprised that Benjamin Bannker isn't there for example, or guys like Sylvester James Gates.

 

Is this why Black men have a bigger penis size?

 

"Gabriel Cash: Aw, c'mon, how come yours is bigger than mine?

Ray Tango: Genetics, peewee."

 

Thank you, LilMike.

 

Indeed, the Bell Curve is very accurate - and it's been proven. Of course it doesn't mean all blacks are dumb and all whites are smart, but there is a curve among races.

Of course we're not all the same, well unless we have an identical twin... Everyone is different hence we're not all equal.

Interestingly enough it's these progressives that claim we're all the same that love to promote all of our differences.

 

That's not how the Bell Curve works.......

There are plenty of blacks with extremely high IQ's but the divergence between blacks with high IQ's and low IQ's is greater than Asians with high IQ's and low IQ's or whites with high IQ's and low IQ's...

If it matters in the United States, the divergence with blacks compared to other blacks isn't as great as blacks compared to other blacks from Africa which is interesting.

 

Progressives or liberals promote equal treatment under law regardless of differences. But this isn't a political issue. It's a matter of science vs. pseudoscience. The idea of racial differences in mental characteristics is a pseudoscientific belief based on the old racist theories of racial essences held by White Supremacists and promoted by a handful of modern psychometricians whose research has been discredited. The book The Bell Curve was shown to be a shoddy piece of work that promoted pseudoscience and racist policy recommendations based mainly on the ideas of racist quacks like Rushton which have no scientific support. While data shows that there are differences in the distribution of IQ score on average between demographic groups and nations science shows that the differences are not immutable and entirely caused by environmental differences. I addressed this in post #5.

 

It's not shoddy science at all - the data is all there but the REAL truth is that progressives ignore the science because it contradicts their stupid belief's that we're all equal --- SORRY WE'RE NOT EQUAL.

Go READ the BELL CURVE and perhaps you will have an understanding. The Bell Curve NEVER asserted blacks were stupid, what the Bell Curve focused on was deviations within particular races..... The Bell Curve NEVER compared blacks to whites or Asians - the Bell Curve compared blacks to other blacks, and whites to other whites, and Asians to other Asians to find deviations among those races, and blacks just happened to have the largest deviation meaning there were by far more blacks with lower than average IQ's compared to blacks with average or above average IQ's than whites or Asians in that same scenario.

Do you understand that?