Refer to the quote by Graves in my last post. Differences in the nurturing environment can cause differences in intelligence. Multiple environmental variables cause the Black-White IQ gap including social discrimination (stereotype threat), toxic environment, and malnutrition. The colonial system in Africa was set up to benefit the European colonists at the expense of the native Africans. When the African took over these former colonies they had no infrastructure necessary to build a first world nation. Africa was stripped of its resources and left without a stable governing body. Even so alot of these African countries like Nigeria are developing rapidly. You're going to have some tyrannical dictators here and there like Mugabe on a politically unstable continent but that doesn't mean that African countries can't eventually grow and prosper with the right direction. Look at how many centuries it took for Europe to come out of the Dark Ages. Good. I would hope that even you weren't that morally depraved although your dehumanizing comments about Blacks in the past suggests that you hate Black people with a passion so I wouldn't be surprised if you consider all Black people to be scum. Which Black people if any do you respect? Just because I recognize White racism as an important variable in the cause of alot of world problems, particularly Black socioeconomic issues doesn't mean I hate White people. You're suggesting that Black people whine about slavery literally all the time? That's not true and the people who talk about slavery more than anyone that I see are White racists. They always whine that they are being blamed for slavery and historical oppression well the reality is that Blacks are disproportionately poor because of the racist atrocities of the past! Deal with it.
False. Differences in nurture are not responsible for non-black IQ differences so why do they affect blacks so much? You are just asserting possibilities (because you are a Black racist) and bringing no evidence. The evidence there is suggests the opposite. Africa wasn't stripped of its resources and you are lying through your teeth. African countries never prosper when run by Blacks. Who's to blame here? What exactly did White people do that renders Blacks permanently unable to design and build industry? Sounds like you are looking for a scapgoat.
What do you mean "facts"? You're making assertions you can't back up with evidence. Back up all of your assertions. How does a history of colonialism prevent Blacks from industrialising? Are African Americans malnourished? Why do alleged nurture differences not affect Whites?
Nonsense. You just parrot slogans which collapse at the slightest analysis. You are an anti-White using "equality" as an excuse to drag Whites down to the lowest level.
I remember you fleeing after being told to write your own arguments. Neither you or your copy-pastes have debunked anything I've said. I suggest you provide a single study showing zero or negative correlation between brain volume and intelligence before passing your pastes off as refutations to my claims.
You've never heard me say anything racist about White people. You are a racist. I am an Egalitarian. Those are facts. That's a lie. My quote and articles refute all of your arguments. You can't refute them. I don't need to show a zero or negative correlation between brain volume and intelligence. All I need to do is show that brain size/volume is not a causative factor in variation in intelligence which I did. Why don't you show that the statements of Graves and Lieberman are wrong? Yes, I do. It's a well-known fact. Hunger, Starvation and Malnutrition Real Threat for African Americans
Great source. That proves it. *facepalm* How do explain low IQ for adopted Blacks? Would this woman have a high IQ?
Good recent article on "racialized environments" here. The Elusive X-Factor, or Why Jonathan Kaplan Is Wrong about Race and IQ Posted by Dalliard Philosopher Jonathan Kaplan recently published an article called Race, IQ, and the search for statistical signals associated with so-called X-factors: environments, racism, and the hereditarian hypothesis, which can downloaded here. His thesis is that the black-white IQ gap could plausibly be due to racism and what he calls racialized environments. He presents simulations in support of this argument. He also argues that given the actual state of the world there is no way to generate any reasonably strong evidence in favor of the hereditarian hypothesis. I have written a detailed critique of his claims. In short, he is wrong. Heres the abstract of my article: Jonathan Michael Kaplan recently published a challenge to the hereditarian account of the IQ gap between whites and blacks in the United States (Kaplan, 2014). He argues that racism and racialized environments constitute race-specific X-factors that could plausibly cause the gap, using simulations to support this contention. I show that Kaplans model suffers from vagueness and implausibilities that render it an unpromising approach to explaining the gap, while his simulations are misspecified and provide no support for his model. I describe the proper methodology for testing for X-factors, and conclude that Kaplans X-factors would almost certainly already have been discovered if they did in fact exist. I also argue that the hereditarian position is well-supported, and, importantly, is amenable to a definitive empirical test.
It really does though. If you're talking about the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study it was shown to be methodologically flawed by its own authors. Several other adoption studies show that Black IQ rises for adopted children. Why don't you track her down and give her an IQ test? She's obviously not malnourished. Maybe you can make her your wife.
We have been over this, and not one of your points stuck; so you're back to copy-pasties again scatter-shot responses. Feel free showing me which of Nisbett's arguments in his article have not been adequately addressed by Rushton's response: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010 Review of Nisbett.pdf Remember, this is when I pointed out Nisbett omits data, such as Asian adoption studies, etc.
Give us the scoop on these pertinent methodological flaws, and these other studies where Black IQ dramatically increased to adopted White IQ levels.
No they don't. But you're illustrating the real problem here perfectly. The fact that 8 out of 10 liberals are so thoroughly committed to labeling conservatives/Republicans racist that they don't actually have any sincere interest in the facts at all. They are only concerned with validating their own prejudices to further their own feelings of moral superiority.
Rushton does a poor job trying to refute Nisbett. For example he doesn't even address the racial admixture studies that show that high Black IQ and degree of White ancestry are not strongly correlated. He just calls the studies old and says Jensen addressed them without getting in to specifics. The rest is just irrelevant, re-hashed garbage that is not worth mentioning. All of Nisbett's points stand. Rushton was a racist quack.
This wasn't established based upon liberal rhetoric but instead was documented by a peer reviewed study (that was a follow-up to a prior study) that was non-partisan. This study also identified extensive anti-black racial prejudice among Democrats and Independents that also needs to be addressed internally by those holding these political ideologies. The studies were a general indictment of racial prejudice in America not based upon any partisan criteria. If you believe the study is in error and have anything to support that opinion then you're welcome to post it. Provide another study that establishes the percentage of those with anti-black racial prejudice based upon political (ideological) demographics. I'd like to read such a study. If you don't have anything to back up your opinion then it's just an uninformed opinion and nothing more.
That is so cute....calling the people,who,fight racism the racists. Do you have any idea how silly you sound? It's called deflecting
You mean Rushton didn't prove Nisbett cherry-picked data; for instance showing Nisbett citing one divergent study out of five with small sample size? Feel free explaining how Nisbett's point still stands after Rushton shows the evidence supports him against Nisbett: You clearly have not read the link then as that is exactly what Rushton does, including addressing the Eyferth German Study, and several others specifically. But that's why my question, asking for any study Rushton ignored to be named, was left unanswered. Feel free naming it. Nisbett, on the other hand, ignores the South African admixture study showing a mean IQ for bi-racial children as 85 - intermediate of the 70 IQ for Blacks and 100 for Whites. http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010 Review of Nisbett.pdf
I haven't read any of those studies so I can't be sure that they support what Rushton says they do. I notice that two of them are attributed to Jensen and one of them says its a tribute to Arthur Jensen, so this may be a case of selection bias on Rushton's part. I could ask Nisbett if he is familiar with these studies. I have read the full article and for much of the work all Rushton says is that the studies are old. When I mentioned that to Nisbett he asked, "What is the half-life of a finding?" Nisbett addressed Rushton's concerns about the Eyferth study in his book. I'm not going to sit here and list every study Rushton may have ignored as his review is a critique of an entire book. What he did though is blend weak critiques of Nisbett's book with his own research most of which is trash (ex. "human origins research and life-history traits.") that has been debunked by other scholars. That study isn't relevant to the racial admixture studies Nisbett conducted and it's a known fact that mixed race ("Colored") children in South Africa on average have a better upbringing than full-blooded Black Africans so it's expected that they'd have higher IQs for environmental reasons.
It's not fair to assume that someone has an inherently lower IQ simply because he's a racist. (Accurate maybe, but not fair.)
You haven't read those studies even though Mikemev re-posted them here months ago? You mean he says the studies were addressed 35 years ago and retails the criticisms from back then of these particular studies? How am I to believe your claim you've read Rushton's response to Nisbett when Rushton points out the errors of every single study Nisbett cites? Interestingly, you haven't listed a single study Rushton has ignored. Name just one. How is the study irrelevant? You seem incapable of justifying any claim you make. Why are you begging the question when you claim it's a fact coloreds have a better upbringing than Blacks?
I'm totally on-board if you can show racists have an IQ a full 15 points lower than Whites like how Blacks have.
I said it wasn't fair to claim a racist is necessarily dumber than anyone one else. *shrug* But I guess you'd know better.
