A Reality Check on Race and IQ

vino909 · Oct 18, 2016

There is a distinct difference between IQ and Common Sense. Case in point, the hoard of blithering idiots coming out of our universities. The IQ may be there, but they rarely have enough sense to live in the real world. They need their "safe spaces".

Egalitarianjay02 · Oct 18, 2016

Merwen said: ↑

In this case it says that the intellectual establishment in this country will no longer accept truth unless it is PC.
Click to expand...

Another way of looking at it is that there are fringe groups in this country peddling pseudoscience in an attempt to give credibility to long discredited theories. Gottfredson has been exposed as a racist who is funded by a racist organization.

juanvaldez said: ↑

Interestingly, William Shockley, another nobody in the field of science, had similar views.
Click to expand...

He was also a racist. I saw an interview with him where he tried to brand his research raciology in order to avoid being called racist. For some reason proponents of racism simply can't accept being called what they are. I can understand the mentality. No one really wants to be demonized but I recognize the power of words and it is absolutely necessary to call racists out on their intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy.

Over 9000 said: ↑

The notion that Whites are to blame for the failure of other races is racist. But then anything one says about race is "racist". So who cares if somebody calls something racist. It's just irrelevant name calling.
Click to expand...

OK so don't whine when I call you a racist for expressing racist views.

PolakPotrafi said: ↑

Your side is way more biased.

Gould who mis-measured Morton's samples, and still found a difference in cranial capacity between the races?

Gould who pioneered Neoteny being a driving factor of Human evolution, admitted that Asians are the most Neotenic, but spoke out against ranking groups as unjustified by levels of Neoteny?
Click to expand...

First of all you really can't get more biased and ridiculous than Rushton citing pornography as a credible source on sex differences between races among his other blunders as a researcher.

Robert Sussman said:

Geneticist Joseph Graves Jr. (2002a, 2002b) has done extensive work on Life history theory and has summarized the flaws in Rushton's understanding of r- and K-selection theory. Further, he points out that over the years, reference to this r/K theory disappeared in legitimate biology journals: from 1977 to 1982 there were an average of forty-two references per year to the theory in the BIOSIS literature search service, but in the period 1984 to 1989, the average dropped to sixteen per year (Stearns 1992). In 2001, there was only one reference to the theory (Graves 2002a). In 1992, major summaries of the criticisms of this theory were published by Stearns (1992( and Roff (1992), both pointing out that the theory of r-selection and K-selection no longer served any purpose in life history theory. In 1997, Graves personally presented these and other rebuttals to this theory to Rushton. Yet in his 1999 abridged version of Race, Evolution, and Behavior, Rushton did not mention the fact that biologists rejected the theory nor did he discuss any of the criticisms of it by life history biologists (of which he is not one). He offers no justification for his use of this outmoded theory and makes no attempt to counter any of the specific criticism. In response to this, Graves (2002a, 139) writes that "the absence of such a response only supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas."

I agree and add that this is exactly what he and the Pioneer Fund want to accomplish: pure propaganda for race and racism and nothing to do with actual scientific reality. They present a scientific veneer for those who don't read or understand legitimate science and who want justification for their own racial prejudice. Graves (2002a, 147) concludes: "J.P. Rushton's view of human evolution suffers from the use of antiquated and simplistic theoretical models concerning life history evolution. In addition his methods of data analysis, results and data sources call in to question the legitimacy of his research." As we have seen with many of his new colleagues, Rushton's theories follow in a direct historical line from past racist eugenicists such as Galton, Gobineau, Chamberlain, Shaler, Davenport, Laughlin, Fisher, Gunther, and Grant. History does indeed repeat itself.

Rushton's information about penis size (length and thickness), angles of erection, and hardness is based on a paper written by a French "surgeon" who used the pseudonym Dr. Jacobus X (A French Army Surgeon 1896). Dr. X does not disclose how he obtained his information, and there are contradictions throughout his paper (see Weizmann et a. [1990] 1999). However Rushton (1988) describes the work as part of the ethnographic record and uses it as a major source for most of his comparative data on male and female genital size and shape. In fact, Weizman et al. ([1990] 1999) point out that the anonymous author, Dr. X, gives his readers descriptions of human physiological traits. He gives details of "genitalia of varying size, shape, texture and color, and the strange sexual customs of a large number of 'semi-civilized' peoples" (Weizmann et al. [1990] 1999, 209). Dr. X even gives a recipe that includes eggplant and hot peppers that he claimed could be used to enlarge penis size.

This is a good example of the "scientific" literature Rushton uses. Rushton's assertions about the relationship between penis size and sexual appetite also is not supported by actual scientific data (Masters and Johnson 1966; Weizmann et al. [1990] 1999). Rushton also claims that white women have larger birth canals than black women, which enabled them to have babies with larger brains, another statement that has no scientific justification. Within human populations, among normally healthy individuals, there is no correlation whatsoever between head size, brain size, cranial capacity, and intelligence (Herskovits 1930; Tobias 1970; Brace 1999, 2005; Beals, Smith and Dodd 1984; Zuckerman and Brody 1988; Cain and Vanderwolf 1989; Gould 1996; Graves 2002a, 2002b; Weizmann et al. [1990] 1990).

Part of Rushton's suite of racist ideas is his belief (which Pearson shares), that racism has a biological basis. He claims that "xenophobia [is]....an innate trait in human beings" that enables them "to preserve 'purity' of the gene pool" (quoted in Tucker 2002, 179). Also, he believes that the racial differences allow one to naturally distinguish "friend from foe" (Miller 1995, 171). He says such things as the statement that "the Nazi army was effective in battle in World War II because it was racially homogeneous, while the U.S. army was ineffective in Vietnam because it was racially mixed" (Sautman 1995).
To his credit, and this is directly related to his lack of understanding of the power of culture, learned worldviews, and environment, Rushton states: "I guess my upbringing led me to believe there really were genetically based class, ethnic and racial differences" (Miller 1995, 170). Rushton was born and raised through the fourth grade under apartheid in South Africa. As Brace (2005, 256) points out: "Rushton's entire career has been devoted to providing proof in favor of his childhood prejudice."

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

As far as Gould is concerned he did not mismeasure Morton's skulls. In fact he didn't measure them at all he simply analyzed his data and pointed out errors. His research on Morton's work has been largely vindicated by Michael Weisberg who analyzed the work of Morton, Gould as well as Jason Lewis and his colleagues who published a paper in 2011 claiming that Gould made mistakes in his interpretation of Morton's data revealing bias on his part. Among Weisberg's points was that Gould was correct in his assessment that Morton's measurements of crania differed between his seed-shot and lead-shot data. They not only differed for every racial category but differed by varying degrees of magnitude between the groups. Morton's African sample differed most significantly indicating that Morton or his assistant did not measure the skulls correctly resulting in a systematic error that conformed to Morton's racial bias.

Gould and Weisberg both report a racial hierarchy with their corrected figures but one that is much less statistically significant than Morton's and actually contradicts Morton's racial hierarchy.

Weisberg addresses the issue of variation is cranial capacity and how it doesn't correspond to racist theories about brain size and intelligence.

Michael Weisberg said:

Gould is also correct about two other major issues. First, sexual dimorphism is a very suspicious source of bias in Mortons reported averages. Since Morton identified most of his sample by sex, this is something that he could have investigated and corrected for. Second, when one takes appropriately weighted grand means of Mortons data, and excludes obvious sources of bias including sexual dimorphism, then the average cranial capacity of the five racial groups in Mortons collection is very similar. This was probably the point that Gould cared most about. It has been reinforced by my analysis.

However, Goulds analysis is flawed in a number of important ways. Although he doesnt say this outright, Gould implies that there are no patterns of differences in the collections cranial capacity. This is incorrect, because, among other things, cranial capacity varies with overall body size, and overall body size varies with the distance from the equator. Anthropologists call this fact Bergmanns rule (Bergmann 1847) and it is true for many mammals.

This and other types of geographically patterned variation can be found in Mortons crania. In an exhibit about Mortons collection titled Making and Unmaking Race, my fellow curators and I write: When measuring crania many different patterns emerge. For instance, the crania in this case show how head shape slowly becomes more rounded from Southern Africa to Northern Europe. On the other hand, cranial capacity gets larger as the climate gets cooler north and south of the Equator. These two traits, like so many others, change independently, and do not align to racial categories (Monge et al. 2012). To be fair, Gould never says that all crania are the same. But a more nuanced look at how crania and other physical traits vary strengthens Goulds argument that there are no general differences among different races as defined by Morton and his contemporaries.

Source: Remeasuring man EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT 16:3, 166178 (2014)
Click to expand...

So Gould was not biased in his assessment of Morton's data although he did make errors of his own he was mostly correct about Morton.

Gould's argument about neoteny in humans was that while there is evidence that neoteny was a driving force in the evolution of humans there is no scientific basis for proclaiming that any race was more neotenous than another and that this had any relevance to mental characteristics. He illustrates this point in The Mismeasure of Man by pointing out that if one were to look at the features of humans to assess their degree of neoteny then Asian women would be superior as Asian populations have a higher degree of traits consistent with neoteny and women are more neotenous than men.

Stephen Jay Gould said:

Louis Bolk, chief defender of human neoteny, declared that the most strongly neotenized races are superior. In retaining more Juvenile features, they have kept further away from "the pithecoid ancestor of man" (1929, p. 26). "From this point of view, the division of mankind into higher and lower races is fully justified [1929, p. 26]. It is obvious that I am, on the basis of my theory, a convinced believer in the inequality of races" (1926, p. 38). Bolk reached into his anatomical grab-bag and extracted some traits indicating a greater departure for black adults from the advantageous proportions of childhood. Led by these new facts to an old and comfortable conclusion, Bolk proclaimed (1929, p. 25): " The white race appears to be the most progressive, as being the most retarded." Bolk, who viewed himself as a "liberal" man, declined to relegate blacks to permanent ineptitude. He hoped that evolution would be benevolent to them in the future:

It is possible for all other races to reach the zenith of development now occupied by the white race. The only thing required is continued progressive action in these races of the biological principle of anthropogenesis [i.e., neoteny]. In his fetal development the negro passes through a stage that has already become the final stage for the white man. Well then, when retardation continues in the negro too, what is still a transitional stage may for this race also become a final one (1926, pp. 473-474).

Bolk's argument verged on the dishonest for two reasons. First, he conveniently forgot all the featureslike the Grecian nose and full beard so admired by Copethat recapitulationists had stoutly
emphasized because they placed whites far from the conditions of childhood. Secondly, he sidestepped a pressing and embarrassing issue: Orientals, not whites, are clearly the most neotenous of
human races (Bolk listed the neotenous features of both races selectively and then proclaimed the differences too close to call; see Ashley Montagu, 1962, for a fairer assessment). Women, moreover, are more neotenous than men. I trust that I will not be seen as vulgar white apologist if I decline to press the superiority of Oriental women and declare instead that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified. Just as Anatole France and Walt Whitman could write as well as Turgenev with brains about half the weight of his, I would be more than mildly surprised if the small differences in degree of neoteny among races bear any relationship to mental ability or moral worth.

Source: The Mismeasure of Man Chapter 4. Measuring Bodies: Two Case Studies on the Apishness of Undesirables p. 149-150
Click to expand...

If we were to compare just these two scholars Gould was seen as a first rate scientist who made legitimate arguments about the fallacies of Scientific Racism and how the ideological bias of its proponents led them to propose theories that had been thoroughly discredited. Rushton on the other hand was a quack whose research was so heavily criticized for its inaccuracies and lack of scientific rigor that his reputation was severely tarnished. His absurd theories and unethical research practices led to him being twice reprimanded by his college and investigated by the Canadian police for hate speech. There really is no comparison between the credibility of these two scholars. Rushton is perhaps the most infamous example on your side but if you look at most of the proponents of race-realism they either have a direct connection to the Pioneer Fund or have made blatantly racist statements in the past that destroy their credibility as objective researchers.

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

OK so don't whine when I call you a racist for expressing racist views.
Click to expand...

I doubt I'll "whine" exactly but I will point out that you resort to meaningless name calling.

Life history theory still in use: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/life-history-evolution-68245673

Your sources are full of lies nitpicking a data set or two and trying to throw out all of Rushton's data.

You keep bringing up "travel porn" as if that's all of Rushton's data, rather than a tiny fraction.

Really cheap pseudoscience.

Egalitarianjay02 · Oct 18, 2016

Over 9000 said: ↑

I doubt I'll "whine" exactly but I will point out that you resort to meaningless name calling.
Click to expand...

Labels have meaning. Would you say that calling a man who has forced sexual intercourse with a woman a rapist is meaningless name-calling? The purpose of using the word racist is to accurately describe an ideology and its advocates. Racism is socially unacceptable today for a reason and there is no reason not to use the word. I really don't see the point in complaining about it. You can't control the use of words. Saying that the word racist is meaningless is an intellectually dishonest exercise. It has meaning. The word is defined in the dictionary and has utility. I can't count how many times I have heard this argument from racist and it has never made any sense.

Instead of complaining about a word why not explain why you think being a racist is a good thing?

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Labels have meaning. Would you say that calling a man who has forced sexual intercourse with a woman a rapist is meaningless name-calling?
Click to expand...

No. Because rape is an act that can be referenced beyond the current context, it's an informative word which describes something. While calling someone a "racist" just means "you said something about race I don't like", which isn't informative or of any interest. It's amusing you have to use "racist", but seem to fail on incorrect.

The purpose of using the word racist is to accurately describe an ideology and its advocates. Racism is socially unacceptable today for a reason and there is no reason not to use the word.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's socially unacceptable. I think racism is scientifically parsimonious and a useful tool for international affairs.

I really don't see the point in complaining about it. You can't control the use of words. Saying that the word racist is meaningless is an intellectually dishonest exercise. It has meaning. The word is defined in the dictionary and has utility. I can't count how many times I have heard this argument from racist and it has never made any sense.

Instead of complaining about a word why not explain why you think being a racist is a good thing?
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't I complain if your posts are 75% based on meaningless name calling? "Racism" is just talking about race differences. Anybody who talk about race differences gets called a racist. You might as well call someone a "treeist" for talking about types of trees. It's meaningless. Is what they are saying incorrect? Nobody cares if it's "racist".

Egalitarianjay02 · Oct 18, 2016

Over 9000 said: ↑

Life history theory still in use: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/life-history-evolution-68245673

Your sources are full of lies nitpicking a data set or two and trying to throw out all of Rushton's data.

You keep bringing up "travel porn" as if that's all of Rushton's data, rather than a tiny fraction.

Really cheap pseudoscience.
Click to expand...

Life History Theory is still in use? No kidding! You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not an expert on Life History Evolution although I am going to read some books on evolution that Joseph Graves recommended to me but even with an elementary understanding of the field one can observe that Rushton was speaking outside of his area of expertise and displayed a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology and Life History theory in general. Seriously go read Graves' paper where he critiqued Rushton's evolutionary arguments and watch their video debate.

What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154

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

Understand that not only did Graves demolish Rushton's arguments but Rushton had no rebuttal. He never replied in a published paper. When this was brought up in a debate on another message board an opponent of mine emailed Rushton and got him to respond. I forwarded the reply to Graves and got a response. This is the exchange:

Joseph Graves said:

1. Rushton's arguments rely on r- and K- life history theory. These designations are general descriptions of investment in reproduction and somatic tissue on opposite ends of a spectrum (r- = more reproduction/less soma and K- = less reproduction/more soma.) The problem with this notion is that it has been shown to be incorrect in a series of experiments with a wide variety of organisms. No one took this theory seriously after about 1990.

2. Even if r- and K- theory were correct, I showed that Rushton applied it backwards. By the theory, Africans should be K- selected (K selection occurs in stable environments, such as the tropics) while r-selection was to be favored in fluctuating environments, such as the temperate zones. So by Rushton's reasoning, Africans should be more genetically capable of intelligence, and Europeans/Asians less.

3. Throughout his work, Rushton selectively uses examples to support his ideas. I have caught him manipulating data in unclear ways, for the purposes of making his points.

4. Rushton requires the existence of biological races, which humans do not have. The existence of geographically based genetic variation is not the same as proving races exist, or that in life history features all Africans are different from all Europeans.
Click to expand...

J. Philippe Rushton said:

Several years ago Joseph Graves did write a book chapter critique of my life-history explanation of race differences. I no longer recall it in detail except that he had ducked the main part, that is, the data.

As you know, most race research focuses on Black-White differences in the US in IQ, education, crime, and marital stability. My research went a lot further to cover some 60 variables such as speed of maturation, brain size (three separate indicators), rate of producing twins at birth, longevity, testosterone, sexual behavior, etc. Moreover, I looked at African descended people in the Caribbean, Canada, the UK, and sub-Saharan Africa. and found the same Black-White differences where ever they were studied. Most crucial, I looked at East Asians on all the same 60 characteristics and found they had higher IQ scores, larger brains, less sexual activity, less crime, fewer twins per 1,000 births etc.

In other words, a highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences exists in brain size, intelligence, sexuality, personality, speed of maturation, life span, crime, and family stability in which East Asian descended people fall at one end of the spectrum, African descended people fall at the other, and European descended people fall intermediate, typically close to East Asians. East Asians are slower to mature, less fertile, less sexually active, with larger brains and higher IQ scores. They also engage in greater social organization and less crime than Africans who are at the opposite ends in each of these areas. My 1995 book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior summarized these theories and the evidence supporting them.

So, the fundamental question is, how do we explain the consistent three-way pattern? No environmental theory alone can do so. Only evolutionary theory in which genetics are crucial can account for the pattern If Dr. Graves can come up with a better theory or show the data is different than I described, he should do so. But he has not done so.
Click to expand...

Joseph Graves said:

Rushton's memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like "social organization" and "crime". Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.
Click to expand...

Also I'm not saying that the travel porn source is the only source of data used by Rushton. That's just an example. Rushton wrote an entire book on the subject that is full of numerous errors.

Egalitarianjay02 · Oct 18, 2016

Over 9000 said: ↑

No. Because rape is an act that can be referenced beyond the current context, it's an informative word which describes something. While calling someone a "racist" just means "you said something about race I don't like", which isn't informative or of any interest. It's amusing you have to use "racist", but seem to fail on incorrect.
Click to expand...

Expressing racist views is also an act and you haven't explained why arguing that certain groups of people are racially inferior is not racist.

I don't think it's socially unacceptable. I think racism is scientifically parsimonious and a useful tool for international affairs.
Click to expand...

You are a racist so I am not surprised that you don't find it to be socially unacceptable.

Why shouldn't I complain if your posts are 75% based on meaningless name calling? "Racism" is just talking about race differences. Anybody who talk about race differences gets called a racist. You might as well call someone a "treeist" for talking about types of trees. It's meaningless. Is what they are saying incorrect? Nobody cares if it's "racist".
Click to expand...

Racism isn't just talking about race differences it is an ideological view that certain races are fundamentally inferior. Racists believe in racial inferiority and often act on it in malicious ways. Scientific Racism is factually incorrect and socially harmful.

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Life History Theory is still in use? No kidding! You don't know what you are talking about. I'm not an expert on Life History Evolution although I am going to read some books on evolution that Joseph Graves recommended to me but even with an elementary understanding of the field one can observe that Rushton was speaking outside of his area of expertise and displayed a profound ignorance of evolutionary biology and Life History theory in general. Seriously go read Graves' paper where he critiqued Rushton's evolutionary arguments and watch their video debate.

What a tangled web he weaves Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton’s life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154

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

Understand that not only did Graves demolish Rushton's arguments but Rushton had no rebuttal. He never replied in a published paper. When this was brought up in a debate on another message board an opponent of mine emailed Rushton and got him to respond. I forwarded the reply to Graves and got a response. This is the exchange:

Also I'm not saying that the travel porn source is the only source of data used by Rushton. That's just an example. Rushton wrote an entire book on the subject that is full of numerous errors.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Some points.

1) r/K is valid as Rushton applied it. The theory was modified to account for some anomalies with insects. It wasn't "falsified".
2) Rushton didn't apply it backwards.
3) The vast majority of Rushton's data is beyond question.
4) One can operationally divide human variation into races, and in fact this is the best way to do it.

Joseph Graves is either a liar or an idiot and none of his assertions bear scrutiny. This is why nobody references him outside biologically illiterate sociology.

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Expressing racist views is also an act and you haven't explained why arguing that certain groups of people are racially inferior is not racist.

You are a racist so I am not surprised that you don't find it to be socially unacceptable.

Racism isn't just talking about race differences it is an ideological view that certain races are fundamentally inferior. Racists believe in racial inferiority and often act on it in malicious ways. Scientific Racism is factually incorrect and socially harmful.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was "not racist". I just said the word "racist" adds nothing to the debate. It's just a dog whistle to attack somebody for stating a scientific opinion. I've heard people called "racist" for stating race is a valid concept. Watson was called racist for saying Africans have different intelligence. He said nothing about inferiority. And some people think some races are superior. These are also called "racists". Everybody who mentions race gets called a racist. Who cares? Are they incorrect?

juanvaldez · Oct 18, 2016

I am proud to be in the same boat with Shockley and Watson.

PolakPotrafi · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Another way of looking at it is that there are fringe groups in this country peddling pseudoscience in an attempt to give credibility to long discredited theories. Gottfredson has been exposed as a racist who is funded by a racist organization.

He was also a racist. I saw an interview with him where he tried to brand his research raciology in order to avoid being called racist. For some reason proponents of racism simply can't accept being called what they are. I can understand the mentality. No one really wants to be demonized but I recognize the power of words and it is absolutely necessary to call racists out on their intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy.

OK so don't whine when I call you a racist for expressing racist views.

First of all you really can't get more biased and ridiculous than Rushton citing pornography as a credible source on sex differences between races among his other blunders as a researcher.

As far as Gould is concerned he did not mismeasure Morton's skulls. In fact he didn't measure them at all he simply analyzed his data and pointed out errors. His research on Morton's work has been largely vindicated by Michael Weisberg who analyzed the work of Morton, Gould as well as Jason Lewis and his colleagues who published a paper in 2011 claiming that Gould made mistakes in his interpretation of Morton's data revealing bias on his part. Among Weisberg's points was that Gould was correct in his assessment that Morton's measurements of crania differed between his seed-shot and lead-shot data. They not only differed for every racial category but differed by varying degrees of magnitude between the groups. Morton's African sample differed most significantly indicating that Morton or his assistant did not measure the skulls correctly resulting in a systematic error that conformed to Morton's racial bias.

Gould and Weisberg both report a racial hierarchy with their corrected figures but one that is much less statistically significant than Morton's and actually contradicts Morton's racial hierarchy.

Weisberg addresses the issue of variation is cranial capacity and how it doesn't correspond to racist theories about brain size and intelligence.

So Gould was not biased in his assessment of Morton's data although he did make errors of his own he was mostly correct about Morton.

Gould's argument about neoteny in humans was that while there is evidence that neoteny was a driving force in the evolution of humans there is no scientific basis for proclaiming that any race was more neotenous than another and that this had any relevance to mental characteristics. He illustrates this point in The Mismeasure of Man by pointing out that if one were to look at the features of humans to assess their degree of neoteny then Asian women would be superior as Asian populations have a higher degree of traits consistent with neoteny and women are more neotenous than men.

If we were to compare just these two scholars Gould was seen as a first rate scientist who made legitimate arguments about the fallacies of Scientific Racism and how the ideological bias of its proponents led them to propose theories that had been thoroughly discredited. Rushton on the other hand was a quack whose research was so heavily criticized for its inaccuracies and lack of scientific rigor that his reputation was severely tarnished. His absurd theories and unethical research practices led to him being twice reprimanded by his college and investigated by the Canadian police for hate speech. There really is no comparison between the credibility of these two scholars. Rushton is perhaps the most infamous example on your side but if you look at most of the proponents of race-realism they either have a direct connection to the Pioneer Fund or have made blatantly racist statements in the past that destroy their credibility as objective researchers.
Click to expand...

Lewis actually measured Morton's skulls, but Gould did not.

Interesting, huh?

With that information I'd say Lewis is probably more accurate than Gould.

Besides, Gould still found a racial hierarchy in cranial capacity none the less.

So, how did Gould come to the conclusion of there being racial equality?

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

PolakPotrafi said: ↑

So, how did Gould come to the conclusion of their being racial equality?
Click to expand...

I'll take Jews for 200, Alex.

PolakPotrafi · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Instead of complaining about a word why not explain why you think being a racist is a good thing?
Click to expand...

Well, outside of anti-racists being more like Psychopaths, and racists being less like Psychopaths.
As I proved below

http://www.politicalforum.com/race-relations/459969-anti-racism-symptom-psychopathy.html

There's obviously benefits to racism.

Being that if our society was more racist in the West, we wouldn't see the replacement of Whites, with Third World non-Whites with lower IQ scores, and higher murder rates.

What's beneficial about that?

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

juanvaldez said: ↑

I am proud to be in the same boat with Shockley and Watson.
Click to expand...

Which is not this boat.

PolakPotrafi · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Another way of looking at it is that there are fringe groups in this country peddling pseudoscience in an attempt to give credibility to long discredited theories. Gottfredson has been exposed as a racist who is funded by a racist organization.

He was also a racist. I saw an interview with him where he tried to brand his research raciology in order to avoid being called racist. For some reason proponents of racism simply can't accept being called what they are. I can understand the mentality. No one really wants to be demonized but I recognize the power of words and it is absolutely necessary to call racists out on their intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy.

OK so don't whine when I call you a racist for expressing racist views.

First of all you really can't get more biased and ridiculous than Rushton citing pornography as a credible source on sex differences between races among his other blunders as a researcher.

As far as Gould is concerned he did not mismeasure Morton's skulls. In fact he didn't measure them at all he simply analyzed his data and pointed out errors. His research on Morton's work has been largely vindicated by Michael Weisberg who analyzed the work of Morton, Gould as well as Jason Lewis and his colleagues who published a paper in 2011 claiming that Gould made mistakes in his interpretation of Morton's data revealing bias on his part. Among Weisberg's points was that Gould was correct in his assessment that Morton's measurements of crania differed between his seed-shot and lead-shot data. They not only differed for every racial category but differed by varying degrees of magnitude between the groups. Morton's African sample differed most significantly indicating that Morton or his assistant did not measure the skulls correctly resulting in a systematic error that conformed to Morton's racial bias.

Gould and Weisberg both report a racial hierarchy with their corrected figures but one that is much less statistically significant than Morton's and actually contradicts Morton's racial hierarchy.

Weisberg addresses the issue of variation is cranial capacity and how it doesn't correspond to racist theories about brain size and intelligence.

So Gould was not biased in his assessment of Morton's data although he did make errors of his own he was mostly correct about Morton.

Gould's argument about neoteny in humans was that while there is evidence that neoteny was a driving force in the evolution of humans there is no scientific basis for proclaiming that any race was more neotenous than another and that this had any relevance to mental characteristics. He illustrates this point in The Mismeasure of Man by pointing out that if one were to look at the features of humans to assess their degree of neoteny then Asian women would be superior as Asian populations have a higher degree of traits consistent with neoteny and women are more neotenous than men.

If we were to compare just these two scholars Gould was seen as a first rate scientist who made legitimate arguments about the fallacies of Scientific Racism and how the ideological bias of its proponents led them to propose theories that had been thoroughly discredited. Rushton on the other hand was a quack whose research was so heavily criticized for its inaccuracies and lack of scientific rigor that his reputation was severely tarnished. His absurd theories and unethical research practices led to him being twice reprimanded by his college and investigated by the Canadian police for hate speech. There really is no comparison between the credibility of these two scholars. Rushton is perhaps the most infamous example on your side but if you look at most of the proponents of race-realism they either have a direct connection to the Pioneer Fund or have made blatantly racist statements in the past that destroy their credibility as objective researchers.
Click to expand...

It's mighty interesting that you didn't address Gould on Neoteny being a driving factor in Human evolution, admitting that Asians were more Neotenic, but then getting all fickle to say that it's harmful to judge races by levels of Neoteny.

I can especially see why a Jew would be concerned with judging people by rates of Neoteny, as Jews notoriously lack Neoteny, they tend to be hairy, have a very long prominent nose, and a very thin face.
(Which is the exact opposite of Neoteny)

PolakPotrafi · Oct 18, 2016

Over 9000 said: ↑

Which is not this boat.

Click to expand...

That doesn't look like a very fun boat.

That's not the same boat in your icon is it?

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

Merwen · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

Another way of looking at it is that there are fringe groups in this country peddling pseudoscience in an attempt to give credibility to long discredited theories. Gottfredson has been exposed as a racist who is funded by a racist organization.

He was also a racist. I saw an interview with him where he tried to brand his research raciology in order to avoid being called racist. For some reason proponents of racism simply can't accept being called what they are. I can understand the mentality. No one really wants to be demonized but I recognize the power of words and it is absolutely necessary to call racists out on their intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy.

OK so don't whine when I call you a racist for expressing racist views.

First of all you really can't get more biased and ridiculous than Rushton citing pornography as a credible source on sex differences between races among his other blunders as a researcher.

As far as Gould is concerned he did not mismeasure Morton's skulls. In fact he didn't measure them at all he simply analyzed his data and pointed out errors. His research on Morton's work has been largely vindicated by Michael Weisberg who analyzed the work of Morton, Gould as well as Jason Lewis and his colleagues who published a paper in 2011 claiming that Gould made mistakes in his interpretation of Morton's data revealing bias on his part. Among Weisberg's points was that Gould was correct in his assessment that Morton's measurements of crania differed between his seed-shot and lead-shot data. They not only differed for every racial category but differed by varying degrees of magnitude between the groups. Morton's African sample differed most significantly indicating that Morton or his assistant did not measure the skulls correctly resulting in a systematic error that conformed to Morton's racial bias.

Gould and Weisberg both report a racial hierarchy with their corrected figures but one that is much less statistically significant than Morton's and actually contradicts Morton's racial hierarchy.

Weisberg addresses the issue of variation is cranial capacity and how it doesn't correspond to racist theories about brain size and intelligence.

So Gould was not biased in his assessment of Morton's data although he did make errors of his own he was mostly correct about Morton.

Gould's argument about neoteny in humans was that while there is evidence that neoteny was a driving force in the evolution of humans there is no scientific basis for proclaiming that any race was more neotenous than another and that this had any relevance to mental characteristics. He illustrates this point in The Mismeasure of Man by pointing out that if one were to look at the features of humans to assess their degree of neoteny then Asian women would be superior as Asian populations have a higher degree of traits consistent with neoteny and women are more neotenous than men.

If we were to compare just these two scholars Gould was seen as a first rate scientist who made legitimate arguments about the fallacies of Scientific Racism and how the ideological bias of its proponents led them to propose theories that had been thoroughly discredited. Rushton on the other hand was a quack whose research was so heavily criticized for its inaccuracies and lack of scientific rigor that his reputation was severely tarnished. His absurd theories and unethical research practices led to him being twice reprimanded by his college and investigated by the Canadian police for hate speech. There really is no comparison between the credibility of these two scholars. Rushton is perhaps the most infamous example on your side but if you look at most of the proponents of race-realism they either have a direct connection to the Pioneer Fund or have made blatantly racist statements in the past that destroy their credibility as objective researchers.
Click to expand...

It seems the same PC blacklisting has been done to Kevin MacDonald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/understandji-1.htm

If he had been listened to, perhaps the refugee debacle happening now would not have occurred.

- - - Updated - - -

Over 9000 said: ↑

Which is not this boat.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many Christians were thrown from it.

Egalitarianjay02 · Oct 18, 2016

Over 9000 said: ↑

Fascinating. Some points.

1) r/K is valid as Rushton applied it. The theory was modified to account for some anomalies with insects. It wasn't "falsified".
Click to expand...

The theory of r/K selection was in fact falsified by experiments which tested its predictions and showed that they didn't hold up for a wide variety of species. Graves goes in to detail on the problems with r/K selection in his paper including the results of these experiments. I emailed another biologist named David Reznick who explained that while some components of r/K selection theory were incorporated in to a Life History Paradigm the overall theory as it was formalized was false and it is certainly not applicable to human evolution.

David Reznick said:

From: (EgalitarianJay02)
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 14:01
To: David Reznick
Subject: The application of r/K selection to humans

Hello Dr. Reznick,

I recently read your 2002 article titled "r - AND K -SELECTION REVISITED: THE ROLE OF POPULATION REGULATION IN LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION". I am currently involved in debating racists on the internet who are supporters of J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton argued that humans evolved differences along the r/K continuum which led to genetic tradeoffs resulting in racial differences in reproductive strategies as well as traits such as intelligence and behavior. Scholars such as Joseph L. Graves say that r/K selection theory was discarded and that Rushton's arguments are wrong. Some racists have used your paper, which is cited on Wikipedia, to claim that r/K selection was only modified and not completely discarded. I would like to hear your thoughts on Rushton's work if you are familiar with it and what your beliefs are about the application of r/K selection to human races.

Thank you for your time.

From: David Reznick (david.reznick@ucr.edu)
Sent: Wed 9/23/15 6:15 PM
To: (EgalitarianJay02)

Dear (EgalitarianJay02),

Well, I had said in that paper that r and K selection was dead, but my graduate student co-authors made me delete that part. r and K selection carries some implicit assumptions that are hard to defend so my deleting that part was more out of politeness than because I thought the theory remained viable. However, it is still generally accepted that organism life histories array themselves along a "slow-fast" continuum, meaning that there is correlated variation in the age at maturity, rate of reproduction and lifespan. One end of the continuum is fast maturation, high reproductive rate and short life span, the other end is the opposite array of traits. This really oversimplifies things but it does account for much of the variation among species.

With regard to humans, there is no evidence I am aware of for genetic variation among populations in these traits. Also, there is precious little evidence for genetic variation among races for anything, even though there is abundant evidence for genetic variation among populations. What I have said may seem contradictory, but the problem is that people have a very poor understanding of the level at which we see meaningful genetic variation. For humans, it is among populations, not races. The human populations of Africa (which are considered one race) actually harbor more genetic variation than all of the rest of humanity so it hardly makes sense to characterize them in a unitary fashion. This is because humans originated in Africa and all humans outside of Africa represent descendants of those who migrated out of Africa around 50,000 years ago. Very often new populations were established with few individuals and harbored little genetic variation. Another source of confusion is the difference between environmental and genetic effects. One example is the age at marriage, first birth and family size. All of these factors are strongly influenced by the level of education of the mother and can change within a generation if the level of education is enhanced. I suspect your antagonists have little appreciation of the differences between environmental and genetic effects and the fact that we have very little knowledge of genetic differences among human populations. It is easy to separate them for guppies, with their short generation times and the ease with which we can breed them in the lab. Humans are a different story.

I do not know Rushton.

The bottom line is that there are elements of r and K selection that remain intact, but the theory as originally coined has little validity, which is what I argued in that paper. There is no evidence I am aware of for a genetic basis of differences among human populations for the traits that comprise r vs K selected populations. I am sure we could find some subtle genetic variation for some traits among human populations, but not among races because races are aggregates of diverse populations. I am not sure that this answers your questions. I will be happy to try again if you have more.

You should try to track down essays by Jared Diamond about genetic variation among human populations in physiological traits. He has written some for popular science magazines, like Natural History. They do a great job of describing the kind of genetic variation we see among human populations, plus they often show how this variation cuts across racial boundaries. For example variation in skin color and sodium metabolism varies among population in a way that cuts across races (meaning that there are Caucasion and Oriental populations almost as dark skinned as Africans in association with adaptation to persistently sunny environments).

Sincerely, David
Click to expand...

2) Rushton didn't apply it backwards.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. According to MacArthur and Wilson K-selection occurs in stable environments such as the tropics and r-selection occurs in fluctuating environments such as temperate zones. Rushton tried to describe the theory in a way that conformed to his racial theories and in doing so mixed up the verbal theory as it was conceptualized by the original authors.

3) The vast majority of Rushton's data is beyond question.
Click to expand...

Some of it is legitimate particularly the statistics but some of it is rather dubious and Rushton constantly misrepresented and distorted research to suit his agenda.

4) One can operationally divide human variation into races, and in fact this is the best way to do it.
Click to expand...

Many evolutionary biologists and geneticists disagree and argue that human populations are not genetically different enough to be classified as races. Alan Templeton wrote a good paper on this recently.

Biological Races in Humans Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep; 44(3): 262–271.

Joseph Graves is either a liar or an idiot and none of his assertions bear scrutiny. This is why nobody references him outside biologically illiterate sociology.
Click to expand...

You haven't pointed out any lies by Graves and since he is a respected scientist with noteworthy academic credentials he is clearly not an idiot.

Over 9000 said: ↑

I didn't claim it was "not racist". I just said the word "racist" adds nothing to the debate. It's just a dog whistle to attack somebody for stating a scientific opinion. I've heard people called "racist" for stating race is a valid concept. Watson was called racist for saying Africans have different intelligence. He said nothing about inferiority. And some people think some races are superior. These are also called "racists". Everybody who mentions race gets called a racist. Who cares? Are they incorrect?
Click to expand...

People who claim there are mental differences between races are factually incorrect and also racists.

PolakPotrafi said: ↑

Lewis actually measured Morton's skulls, but Gould did not.

Interesting, huh?

With that information I'd say Lewis is probably more accurate than Gould.

Besides, Gould still found a racial hierarchy in cranial capacity none the less.

So, how did Gould come to the conclusion of there being racial equality?
Click to expand...

Gould's views on Morton's samples did not differ from Lewis as they both agreed that the lead-shot measurements were more accurate. The hierarchy that Gould reported was not statistically significant.

Over 9000 said: ↑

I'll take Jews for 200, Alex.
Click to expand...

So you are a racist and an anti-Semite.

PolakPotrafi said: ↑

It's mighty interesting that you didn't address Gould on Neoteny being a driving factor in Human evolution, admitting that Asians were more Neotenic, but then getting all fickle to say that it's harmful to judge races by levels of Neoteny.

I can especially see why a Jew would be concerned with judging people by rates of Neoteny, as Jews notoriously lack Neoteny, they tend to be hairy, have a very long prominent nose, and a very thin face.
(Which is the exact opposite of Neoteny)
Click to expand...

I clearly did address Gould's views on neoteny and human evolution. What are you talking about?

Over 9000 · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

The theory of r/K selection was in fact falsified by experiments which tested its predictions and showed that they didn't hold up for a wide variety of species. Graves goes in to detail on the problems with r/K selection in his paper including the results of these experiments. I emailed another biologist named David Reznick who explained that while some components of r/K selection theory were incorporated in to a Life History Paradigm the overall theory as it was formalized was false and it is certainly not applicable to human evolution.
Click to expand...

Lol, your Reznick quote says r/K is valid but he hasn't looked at Rushton's data. So it's just ignorance.

Yes, he did. According to MacArthur and Wilson K-selection occurs in stable environments such as the tropics and r-selection occurs in fluctuating environments such as temperate zones. Rushton tried to describe the theory in a way that conformed to his racial theories and in doing so mixed up the verbal theory as it was conceptualized by the original authors.
Click to expand...

Quote MacArthur and Wilson.

Some of it is legitimate particularly the statistics but some of it is rather dubious and Rushton constantly misrepresented and distorted research to suit his agenda.
Click to expand...

No, the vast majority if not all is legitimate, and nothing is misrepresented or distorted.

Many evolutionary biologists and geneticists disagree and argue that human populations are not genetically different enough to be classified as races. Alan Templeton wrote a good paper on this recently.

Biological Races in Humans Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep; 44(3): 262–271. .
Click to expand...

Templeton is a quack who misrepresents the 75% rule for hybrid classification as being about Fst. There is no lower bound on Fst/Subspecies. Feel free to show it being applied in biology outside Templeton's fabricated application to human race.

You haven't pointed out any lies by Graves and since he is a respected scientist with noteworthy academic credentials he is clearly not an idiot.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to know if he's lying or just mentally defective. He's certainly wrong about eveything.

People who claim there are mental differences between races are factually incorrect and also racists.
Click to expand...

It's clearly the most parsimonious theory. Nobody cares if it's "racist".

Gould's views on Morton's samples did not differ from Lewis as they both agreed that the lead-shot measurements were more accurate. The hierarchy that Gould reported was not statistically significant.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Gould accused Morton of fudging data...while fudging data.

So you are a racist and an anti-Semite.
Click to expand...

I may be a racist, which is fine because racism is scientifically correct, but pointing out the fact that Jews are deeply involved in egalitarian pseudo-science is a fact, it's not "anti" anything.

Lil Mike · Oct 18, 2016

DarkSkies said: ↑

1. Despite the Chinese immigrants outperforming Malaysia natives, the Malaysian country is richer than China. Judging by the insinuations made in the OP, China should be far richer than Malaysia.
Click to expand...

I think I've already addressed that.

DarkSkies said: ↑

2. The American foreign policy is basically a sophisticated form of theft. For all the resources taken from other places to feed this economy, hardly anything is given back. If countries don't like it, it becomes time for a war special just for them. America itself was built on theft, violence, and deception.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be a very well thought out idea as to why American living standards are so high compared to the rest of the world. This strikes me more as a rant rather than a thesis with some evidence and theory behind it. In any case, it's probably outside the scope of this thread.

Taxonomy26 · Oct 18, 2016

EgalitarianJay02 said:

Many evolutionary biologists and geneticists disagree and argue that human populations are not genetically different enough to be classified as races. Alan Templeton wrote a good paper on this recently.
Biological Races in Humans Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep; 44(3): 262–271.
Click to expand...

Over 9000 said:

Templeton is a quack who misrepresents the 75% rule for hybrid classification as being about Fst. There is no lower bound on Fst/Subspecies. Feel free to show it being applied in biology outside Templeton's fabricated application to human race.
Click to expand...

The paper EJay cited is quite ambivalent/conflicted/even contradictory on Race in humans, Chimps, and the comparison of standards between the two.

Is Homo sapiens polytypic?
Human taxonomic diversity and its implications
Michael A. Woodley
School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, UK (2009/2010)
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf

[........]
Based on Table 2, it is evident that the ‘H. sapiens as monotypic species’ theory is Inconsistent with the way in which taxonomic classification has been employed for other species exhibiting similar degrees of heterozygosity.

Chimpanzees for example exhibit very similar degrees of observed heterozygosity to humans (0.63–0.73 vs. 0.588–0.807) yet have been divided into Four subspecies.

Some species such as the grey wolf actually exhibit Lower levels of observed heterozygosity than humans (0.528 vs. 0.588– 0.807) yet have been divided into as many as 37 subspecies.

When measures of Genetic distance are used such as Wright’s FsT, which describes the fraction of the variation attributable to population subdivision, values indicative of Great Levels of Genetic Differentiation have been obtained for Humans (0.156) based on the analysis of autosomal loci [39] (great levels of genetic differentiation correspond to values of between 0.15 and 0.25 [40]).
This contrasts with scores indicative of little to moderate levels of genetic differentiation in other animals (again obtained by looking at autosomal loci), such as the Canadian lynx (0.033) [28], which is recognized as having three subspecies, and the African buffalo (0.059) [24], which is recognized as having five subspecies.

A relevant question to ask at this stage is how many subspecies comprise H. sapiens?
Traditionally, anthropologists have recognized four great races on morphological grounds (Congoid or ‘Negroid’, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Australoid) with Capoid (SE Africans) sometimes described as a fifth [41]. Molecular data have resulted in this structure being modified slightly with the analysis of classical and other genetic markers consistently revealing the presence of around five continental populations (major clades or races) in the form of
SubSaharan Africans, Caucasians (European and Non-European), NE (Greater) Asians, SE Asians and Pacific Islanders (includes Australopapuans) and Amerindians [42–45]. Subspecies identified cladistically not only compliment the definition of race as correlation structure, but also present an adequate solution to the problem of arbitrariness in traditional taxonomic approaches to the classifi- cation of human racial diversity [45,46].
[... ! ! ! ...]
Table 4 would seem to suggest that the Sub-Saharan African (Bantu) and Australopapuan (Aborigine) genetic difference as measured by SNP’s is Greater than the genetic distance between both the two species of gorilla (Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei), and greater than the distance between the common chimpanzee and the bonobo as measured by mtDNA."

"On the basis of this Fuerle suggests that there are only two consistent courses of action to take regarding re-classification – splitting or lumping. Either H. sapiens could be split into two Species – Homo africanus which would encompass modern African populations and Homo eurasianensis which would encompass Eurasian populations; making the genus Homo consistent in his view, species-wise with respect to other genera in which the differences between species are expressed in terms of much smaller genetic distances; or alternatively the genetic variability within the human species could be used to typologically define the absolute limits of what constitutes a vertebrate species, which could then be employed as a taxonomic baseline in the classification of other species. This would mean lumping the two gorilla species and the chimpanzee and the bonobo as single species."
[.......]
Click to expand...

Though even based on that very informativer/startling SNP/mtDNA differential, Neither I or the paper are suggesting separate species for humans, but certainly separate subspecies/Races is not in doubt.
+

DarkSkies · Oct 18, 2016

Lil Mike said: ↑

I think I've already addressed that.

That doesn't seem to be a very well thought out idea as to why American living standards are so high compared to the rest of the world. This strikes me more as a rant rather than a thesis with some evidence and theory behind it. In any case, it's probably outside the scope of this thread.
Click to expand...

Fine. To each our own perspectives then.

rayznack · Oct 18, 2016

Egalitarianjay02 said: ↑

The theory of r/K selection was in fact falsified by experiments which tested its predictions and showed that they didn't hold up for a wide variety of species. Graves goes in to detail on the problems with r/K selection in his paper including the results of these experiments. I emailed another biologist named David Reznick who explained that while some components of r/K selection theory were incorporated in to a Life History Paradigm the overall theory as it was formalized was false and it is certainly not applicable to human evolution.

Yes, he did. According to MacArthur and Wilson K-selection occurs in stable environments such as the tropics and r-selection occurs in fluctuating environments such as temperate zones. Rushton tried to describe the theory in a way that conformed to his racial theories and in doing so mixed up the verbal theory as it was conceptualized by the original authors.

Some of it is legitimate particularly the statistics but some of it is rather dubious and Rushton constantly misrepresented and distorted research to suit his agenda.

Many evolutionary biologists and geneticists disagree and argue that human populations are not genetically different enough to be classified as races. Alan Templeton wrote a good paper on this recently.

Biological Races in Humans Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2013 Sep; 44(3): 262–271.

You haven't pointed out any lies by Graves and since he is a respected scientist with noteworthy academic credentials he is clearly not an idiot.

People who claim there are mental differences between races are factually incorrect and also racists.

Gould's views on Morton's samples did not differ from Lewis as they both agreed that the lead-shot measurements were more accurate. The hierarchy that Gould reported was not statistically significant.

So you are a racist and an anti-Semite.

I clearly did address Gould's views on neoteny and human evolution. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Please address this thread which finds a differing cognitive profile between whites and blacks after the IQ gap is controlled for.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org...d-whites-with-the-same-iq-still-differ-a-lot/

Why are blacks relatively better at rote learning, memorizing and procedural tasks, and whites better at visual spacial ability and problem solving?

Egalitarianjay02 · Oct 18, 2016

Over 9000 said: ↑

Lol, your Reznick quote says r/K is valid but he hasn't looked at Rushton's data. So it's just ignorance.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. He said that r/K selection was not valid but he was pressured to avoid mentioning that in his paper but that some components of it were legitimate. The quote clearly explains why r/K selection is not applicable to humans. Reznick had never heard of Rushton which isn't surprising considering Rushton was not a biologist, just a racist psychologist with an ideological axe to grind. I showed Reznick the paper written by Graves' which he agreed with. Rushton actually quoted Reznick in his book and when I showed him the quote he said that Rushton misrepresented him.

David Reznick said:

From: (EgalitarianJay02)
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 16:42
To: David Reznick
Subject: RE: The application of r/K selection to humans

Thank you Dr. Reznick,

If you are at all interested in what Rushton had to say about r/K selection theory you can read his book at the link below. Here too is a link to an article by Joseph Graves who critiques him.

Rushton's book: https://mega.nz/#!eVsDTDpT!j48GU...wAO8aYlcIIXvRQ

Graves' critique: http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf

Rushton also seems to have cited you in his references:

Reznick, D. A., Bryga, H., & Endler, J. A. (1990). Experimentally induced life-history evolution in a natural population. Nature, 346, 357-59.

Here's an excerpt for context:

In an eleven-year study of differences in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata),
genetic changes in life histories were shown over 30 to 60 generations (Reznik,
Bryga, & Endler, 1990). Earlier maturing fish allocated a greater proportion
of the body mass to reproduction (embryo weight/total body weight) and produced
more and smaller offspring per brood, while late maturing fish produced
a smaller number of larger offspring. Using experimental procedures
and the transplanting of populations to a common environment, the differences
were shown to be heritable. Other evidence for within-species variation
in life histories was found with snow geese by Lessells, Cooke, and Rockwell
(1989) and with ground squirrels by Zammuto and Millar (1985), among others.

I have been in communication with Dr. Graves by email for awhile now. I emailed him as well about your paper. He says you are a colleague of his and you didn't say anything in that paper that he wouldn't say. Thanks again for your insight on race and genetics. Indeed my racist opponents are not experts in evolutionary biology, they are just parroting Rushton. It's refreshing to talk to actual experts about this. If you could I would appreciate it if you could read Graves article and tell me what you think. Also here is a video that you may want to take a look at on my Youtube channel featuring Graves and Rushton in debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Sincerely,

(EgalitarianJay02)

From: David Reznick (david.reznick@ucr.edu)
Sent: Thu 9/24/15 10:25 PM
To: (EgalitarianJay02)

Dear (EgalitarianJay02),

Joe Graves' article is an accurate representation of the science side. Rushton's "theory" is really just a verbal argument that, as far as I can see, has no substantive support. The citation of my work is actually not correct. My results were a formal comparison of the experimental and control populations and the two populations differed in the fashion outlined here. The other articles cited in this paragraph did nothing to substantiate that the differences they saw among populations had a genetic basis. They just compared the phenotypes of wild-caught individuals. This is a pretty soft and uncritical representation of the scientific literature.

Sincerely, David
Click to expand...

Quote MacArthur and Wilson.
Click to expand...

I certainly will. Let's take a look at what they say compared to Rushton compared to Graves' analysis of Rushton's work.

Robert H. MacArthur said:

The biogeographic implications of the distinction are considerable: where climates are rigorously seasonal and winter survivors recolonize each spring, in the presence of a bloom of foliage and food, we expect r selection favoring large productivity; where climates are uniformly benign, K selection and greater efficiency result. This conclusion was anticipated in a less precise way by Dobzhansky (1950), who argued that competition and other forms of species interaction should influence evolution to a greater degree in the tropics than in the temperate zone.

Source: The Theory of Island Biogeography p. 149
Click to expand...

J. Philippe Rushton said:

To account for the pattern, I proposed a gene-based evolutionary theory familiar to biologists as the r-K scale of reproductive strategy. At one end of this scale are r-strategies, which emphasize high reproductive rates, and, at the other, K-strategies, which emphasize high levels of parental investment. This scale is generally used to compare the life histories of widely disparate species but I used it to describe the immensely smaller variations within the human species. To emphasize that all human beings are K-selected relative to other animals this proposal was referred to as "differential K theory" (Rushton,1984,1985a). I hypothesized that Mongoloid people are more K-selected than Caucasoids, who in turn are more K-selected than Negroids. I also mapped the r-K scale onto human evolution. Molecular genetic evidence indicates that modern humans evolved in Africa sometime after 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split occurring about 110,000 years ago and a Mongoloid/Caucasoid split about 41,000 years ago. Evolutionary selection pressures are far different in the hot African savanna where Negroids evolved, than in the cold Arctic environment, where Mongoloids evolved. Hence, it was predictable that these geographic races would show genetic differences in numerous traits. African populations, the earliest to emerge, are least K-selected, and Mongoloids, emerging latest, are most K-selected, with Caucasoids falling intermediately. Such an ordering explains how and why the variables clustered.

Source: Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective Preface xiii
Click to expand...

Joseph Graves said:

b. Discussion of Rushtons use of r- and K-theory

The second fatal flaw in Rushtons thinking about the evolution of human life history patterns is that he confuses the supposed pattern of phenotypic correlations engendered by a specified pattern of selection (r-characteristics, K-characteristics) with the specific patterns of selection (r-selection, K-selection). For example, in his defense of his theory in the chapter entitled Challenges and Rejoinders: Is r-K theory correct?, he criticizes Barash (1982) thusly:

Barash, however, is incorrect. Predictability is the ecological necessity for K-selection. This can occur in either a stable environment or a predictably variable one. What has apparently been misunderstood is that subtropical savannahs, where humans evolved, because of sudden droughts and devastating viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases, are less predictable for long-lived species than are temperate and especially Arctic environments. Although the Arctic climate varies greatly over one year, it is highly predictable, but harsh, over many years. (Rushton, 1995: 249)

There are many things wrong with this formulation. First, there is no evidence cited from the ecological, life history, population, or environmental literature that support his claim that arctic, in particular glacial, environments are more predictable than tropical environments. There is absolutely no reason to believe this assertion. The problem here is that Rushton is comparing apples to oranges. All environments contain the complex interaction of both biotic and physical components. To compare the general predictability of an environment (and here we are talking about it being relative to sources of human mortality or factors that influence fertility or viability), we would need to have accurate information about both the biotic and physical sources of variability and compare them. In this paragraph, Rushton compares biotic sources of mortality (viruses and so on) to non-biotic sources in the Arctic. He makes these comparisons without citations from the scientific literature to validate either claim. Finally, we would have to be able to establish causal relations between these sources of variability and their relationship to variations in fitness within the human species. None of this is provided in this analysis, nor are relevant studies of this problem provided. Finally, r- and K-selection never explicitly dealt with environmental predictability. This is more in the domain of bet-hedging hypotheses (as described in Stearns, 1992). Bet-hedging theory generally does not yield the same predictions concerning the evolution of life histories as r- and K-selection. Again, Rushton simply has these concepts confused.

Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushtons life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131154 (2002)
Click to expand...

Clearly Rushton tried to distort the scientific literature to fit his evolutionary arguments in order to justify his racial theories.

No, the vast majority if not all is legitimate, and nothing is misrepresented or distorted.
Click to expand...

A lot of his research is wrong and many scholars have pointed out errors. Here is an example from Graves' article:

Joseph Graves said:

d. Misrepresentation of legitimate research

Graves (2002) summarizes the many areas of legitimate research that are misapplied to support Rushtons ordering of human races along the r- and K-continuum. These include theory and data concerning:

1) Experimental results relative to testing r- and K-theory, such as Taylor and Condra
(1980) and Hegmann and Dingle (1982).

2) Correlation of body size, brain size, IQ, and life history variation, including errors in utilizing original data (such as from Broman et al., 1987).

3) Dubious interpretations of hormone biology and variation of such between human races.

Graves (2002) examined Rushtons use of original data from Broman et al. (1987). This appeared in his book in Table 2.3, p. 40. The data in this table are the result of lumping all of the IQ cognitive classes for each race reported in the original study. (In a personal communication Rushton explained how the figures in his Table 2.3 were calculated. I was originally under the mistaken impression that they had been miscopied.) The children in this study were assigned to the following cognitive classes: severely retarded, mildly retarded, borderline, average, and above average. The figures in Table 2.3 were calculated from Tables 6.10, 9.28, 9.34, 9.41, and 9.54; pp. 104, 220, 226, 233, and 161 respectively in Broman et al., 1987.

While on the surface, lumping all the children by socially identified race may seem reasonable, it is an error in statistical reasoning that favors his thesis of the greater head size of whites. He arrived at the figures shown in Table 3.8 by using a weighted average for all of the cognitive classes at each of the age groups shown. An examination of the original data shows that for each of the age groups the blacks in the study had 23 times more children assigned to the severely retarded, mildly retarded, and borderline groups. For example, the figures at birth were for whites: 26, 167, and 2331 and for blacks: 58, 825, 8079 respectively. Thus, the weighted means of the white sample were equivalent to the means of the average cognitive group, but the weighted mean of the black group became less than the mean of the average cognitive group for each age category. It is not an appropriate statistical operation to calculate a weighted mean from groups that have not been drawn from the same population (Zar, 1999: 130). Therefore it makes no sense to lump the categories of children classified as severely retarded, mildly retarded, borderline retarded, normal, and above average into the same group (this conclusion is supported by the analysis reported by Broman et al., 1987 for each age group in this study.) Finally, the equating of head size alone to intelligence is compromised when no analysis is presented of the relationship of head to body size in the two populations in question. Broman et al. (1987) did report data that suggested that the body sizes of the black and white children in their cognitive class groups were not equivalent. Rushton did not mention this in his discussion of the study. For example, when head size is normalized by body weight in the data for four-month-old children, the black head circumference/body weight ratio is actually bigger than that for white children in all the cognitive classes (head circumference, Table 6.10, p. 104; body weight, p. 109; black ratio 7.03, 7.01, 6.672, 6.50, 6.25 and white ratio 6.86, 6.66, 6.51, 6.33, 6.23 respectively.) A similar pattern emerges when we examine body size data from the other age groups reported in this study.

Source: What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushtons life history theory Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131154 (2002)
Click to expand...

Templeton is a quack who misrepresents the 75% rule for hybrid classification as being about Fst. There is no lower bound on Fst/Subspecies. Feel free to show it being applied in biology outside Templeton's fabricated application to human race.
Click to expand...

Templeton is a respected scientist. You appear to be getting bad information from webpages like this. The Fst value was developed by Sewall Wright to assess population genetic divergence. I have discussed misinterpretations of the meaning of Fst and its applicability to human genetic variation with Joseph Graves.

Joseph Graves said:

From: (EgalitarianJay02)
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:35 PM
To: Joseph L. Graves
Subject: Wright's threshold for subspecies classification

Dear Dr. Graves,

I have encountered another racist opponent on a message board who says that he analyzed your recent paper, "Race, Genomics and Intelligence: Slight Return" and found a critical error. He says you provide no citation for the claim that population geneticists use a threshold for identifying the existence of biological races (FST> 0.250). He says that you cite Sewall Wright's 1978 book which he claims to have in his possession and Wright doesn't make any claim of a threshold for classification of biological races. According to my opponent you didn't say that Wright said there was a threshold for classification of biological races but didn't give a citation for the population geneticists referencing this threshold which leads readers to believe that this is Wright's threshold for subspecies classification.

Could you please provide me with a source or sources that clear up this matter?

From:Joseph L. Graves
Sent: Mon 7/27/2015 10:38 AM
To: (EgalitarianJay02)
Subject: Wright's threshold for subspecies classification

Dear (EgalitarianJay02), This is a common error I have dealt with many times in the past. Wright discusses the level of variation in Fst and its meaning on page 85 in the chapter entitled: Genetic Variability in Natural Populations: Methods. On that page he does not mention the terms "race" or "subspecies". Instead he talks about F = 0.25 as an arbitrary value above which there is very great differentiation.

Sewall Wright was clearly a racialist (one who believed that biological races existed within our species). This is demonstrated by his discussions of Racial Differentiation in Mankind in chapter 10. He recognized that Fst in humans was pretty small, for the genes he examined in that chapter Fst = 0.1248, and he understood the principle of discordance (see discussion on 449--450.) While I did not know Wright personally, I know and work closely with many people who knew him and worked closely with him. The determination that Fst = 0.250 for the boundary of racial/subspecies identification is really a post-Wright phenomenon.

Sincerely,

Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr.

Associate Dean for Research & Professor of Biological Sciences

Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering

North Carolina A&T State University

UNC Greensboro

2907 E. Lee St.

Greensboro, NC 27401

Off. 336-285-2858

Mobile: 336-707-1556
Click to expand...

The Fst value is used consistently in the biological literature. Google Scholar turns up thousands of results for "Fst subspecies biology."

It's impossible to know if he's lying or just mentally defective. He's certainly wrong about eveything.
Click to expand...

He's right about everything regarding this subject and certainly has a lot more credibility than a racist quack like Rushton.

It's clearly the most parsimonious theory. Nobody cares if it's "racist".
Click to expand...

It's just racist propaganda.

Nonsense. Gould accused Morton of fudging data...while fudging data.
Click to expand...

Gould didn't fudge data. He pointed out examples of Morton's systematic error and sampling bias which was shown to be correct by Weisberg.

I may be a racist, which is fine because racism is scientifically correct, but pointing out the fact that Jews are deeply involved in egalitarian pseudo-science is a fact, it's not "anti" anything.
Click to expand...

You are racist. I agree with that. Your views are not scientifically correct and you are advancing conspiracy theories about Jews because you hate them (antisemitism).

ThirdTerm · Oct 18, 2016

The average African American IQ is 85-92, while the children of African immigrants in Britain have an IQ of 92-100, which are way above typical African IQ scores of 70. Urbanised and educated blacks are generally as smart as those from the Balkans such as Croatia and Bosnia (90). Racial theorists cling to low average scores of African countries to prove that Africans are racially inferior but it's their nomadic life style and the lack of education that are responsible for their lower IQ scores, rather than genetic factors. Irish travellers' average IQ score is as low as 84 because of their life style choice and they are racially identical with the Irish (92).

Log in or Sign up

A Reality Check on Race and IQ

vino909 Well-Known Member

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

juanvaldez Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

Over 9000 Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

Over 9000 Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

Merwen Well-Known Member

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Lil Mike Well-Known Member

Taxonomy26 Banned

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

rayznack Well-Known Member

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

A Reality Check on Race and IQ

vino909 Well-Known Member

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

juanvaldez Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

Over 9000 Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

Over 9000 Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

PolakPotrafi Banned

Merwen Well-Known Member

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

Over 9000 Banned

Lil Mike Well-Known Member

Taxonomy26 Banned

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

rayznack Well-Known Member

Egalitarianjay02 Banned

ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches