Joseph Graves Lies on Race repeated here regularly

In the article posted here by Ejay: "Race, Genomics and Intelligence: Slight Return"
by Joseph Graves....

Graves claims there isn't enough difference to call groups Races. He cites (LIES about) Sewall Wright in the paper Ejay posted as the OP of another thread.
The whole basis for Graves' Race denial, and the ergo denial of eveb possible Race IQ difference is based on a false/intentionally false premise about Race.

From that article:

[.......]
Population Subdivsion

Population subdivision is a means to test the amount of genetic variation amongst subpopulations within a species. This concept was developed by American evolutionary geneticist Sewall Wright (197.

Populations, which have undergone significant adaptation to local conditions, differ in population dynamic history, and limited gene flow between them should differ in allele frequencies at a number of loci. The population subdivision statistic (FST) compares the allelic diversity of each of the subpopulations against a pooled total population.
Since Wright’s invention of F coefficients, which examine the proportioning of genetic variation between different levels within a species, population geneticists have utilized a minimum value of differentiation between subpopulations and the total species as the threshold for identifying the existence of biological races (FST> 0.250). Wright chose this value to maximize the probability that the subgroups were actually fixed for alternative different alleles at various loci.

Four nucleotides can be found in DNA, adenosine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), and Cytosine (C)......​

But this is NOT an honest citation of Wright, AND Graves knows it isn't, as does someone else here.
Sewalll Wright believed there WERE Human RACES and the ".25" he mentioned was NOT a measure of race in his mind, just a measure of "great Genetic Differentiation. ".15" was medium.
In the same Wright book Graves cites, Wright said as little as ".05" was significant.
Indeed, there are many Subspecies/Races with Less differences than .25, AND less FsT differences than humans have.

and as I said, besides Graves Disngenuity, someone here knows it too, as Graves told him so in response to his query.
Thanks buddy!

From: Joseph L. Graves (gravesjl@ncat.edu) Sent: Mon 7/27/2015 10:37 AM To: (EgalitarianJay)
Subject: RE: Wright's threshold for subspecies classification
Dear (EgalitarianJay),

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.​

So Wright did NOT use the criteria Graves repeatedly claimed for Race!
He now claims it was "post-Wright", but NO Citation.
So all his BS is BS.
All his "not enough distance" claims based on Disingenuity/Mischaracterization.

And again, Many SubSpecies are below the .25 FsT Threshold in their subspecies races and many below Human FsT difference.

Not that FsT is the be-all end-all, or even main determinant of Race deterination.

And Funnily/Amazingly enough, Even if you include Chimps AND humans in the same testing, their difference will only be FsT ".16" (source below)

So not only is their PLENTY of Room for subspecies/Race below ".25", there's room for Different related SPECIES below that Phony Graves threshold.

Cont'd

 

What did Wright really think about Race?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Morphologically_differentiated_populations

Morphologically differentiated populations

Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.​

Some people Confuse the old 75/25 rule with Wrights .25 or some erler Lewontin claims
Cont'd

In 1978,
Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered Different Subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones."""
​

This is similar to the more modern pronunciation of Jerry Coyne,
perhaps the world's foremost expert on Evolution, Genetics, and author of the Standard Text 'Speciation.'
There ARE human Races.
`

 

This article includes the Chicanery of Graves and another famous Race Denier, Alan Templeton, as well as the original great fallacy of Lewonton.

Variation Within and Between Races
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/variation-within-and-between-races/
April 15, 2016 RyanFaulk

Lewontins Fallacy

A common argument against the taxonomic validity of race is that there is more genetic variation within than between races and so races must not be genetically different enough to be subspecies. This argument comes from a 1972 paper by the Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin. As will be shown, Lewotin’s argument fails because the metric of genetic differences he used has no obvious relevance to subspecies and because human races are equally or more genetically differentiated than recognized subspecies from other species are.
[..............]
[..............]
Unfortunately, Lewontin never explained why an Fst value of 6.3% should mean races have no taxonomic or genetic significance. And it isn’t obvious that it should. In fact, Sewall Wright, a founder of population genetics and the man who invented Fst values, thought that they had Nothing to do measuring taxonomic significance and continued to believe in Human races long after Lewontin’s famous article (1984).

That Lewontin’s idea never took hold in the world of biology can be seen by looking at a 2006 report be the U.S Geological Survey which reviewed more than a century of popular proposed criteria for when a population counts as a sub-species. It never mentioned Fst values let alone Lewontin’s paper (Haig et al. 2006).

[/u]Since Lewontin’s paper, research has suggested that the Human Fst value is actually about twice as large, 12%, as what Lewontin suggested (Elhaik 2012). [............]
Furthermore, Lewontin has never adressed the fact that there are many species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values lower than Humans.
As can be seen below, I was easily able to find 8 other species with recognized subspecies which have Fst values no higher than humans.
[..........]

[..........]
[..........]
Based on this traditional understanding of subspecies taxonomy, multiple geneticists have pointed out that an Fst value of 6% is just the average increased probability of a Single gene being different ... by combining data from multiple genes at once into our analysis, we can very accurately predict whether or not someone will be a member of a given race (Mitton 1977). - To get a conceptual understanding of what this means, imagine that you were told to guess whether a person was a male or a female based on whether they were taller or shorter than average, or hairier or less hairy than average, or whether their voice was higher or lower pitched than average, etc. If only one of these facts were told to you, you could make an educated guess but there would be a decent chance that you would be wrong. But if you combined data on, say, 20 such sex differences, your chances of correctly guessing the person’s sex would become quite high. By the same principle, a singe gene might not be a very good predictor of someone’s race, but that doesn’t mean that the combined data of many genes wont be. It was on this basis that the famed population genetic A. W. F. Edwards dubbed this argument against race “Lewontin’s Fallacy” (Edwards 2002).

Further more, an Fst value is not even a good measure of genetic differentiation. Consider the work done in Long and Kittles 2003, which provided a powerful demonstration of just how Ridiculous an Fst subspecies criteria really is. Long and Kittles calculated the Fst value of the global human population at 11%, which is pretty typical of modern studies.

They then calculated the Fst value of the global human population plus a population of chimpanzees to be 16%. Thus, the inclusion of Chimpanzees into the calculation only raised the Fst value by 5%, and most Fst based subspecies criteria would therefore conclude that a population of humans and chimps has no significantly different sub populations within it!

This work is not only amusing, but illustrative of the primary problem with Fst values as a measure of genetic differentiation.
[..........]
[..........]

 

Appendix 1: Alan Templeton and Fst > .25

A highly cited 1999 paper by the geneticist Alan Templeton claimed that requiring that a subspecies have an Fst value of at least 25%-30% is “standard in the nonhuman literature” (Templeton 1999). Templeton, who uses this claim to argue against the existence of human races, cites the 1997 paper “Subspecies and Classification” by Smith, Chiszar, and Montanucci, to substantiate that this Fst standard is common place in biology (Smith, Chiszar, and Montanucci, 1997.). But Smith et al. 1997 never even mentions Fst values! It appears that Templeton assumed that this is what Smith et al 1997 meant when they wrote that subspecies cannot “overlap in variation of their differentiae” by more than 25%-30%. This is almost surely not a reference to Fst values. Instead, this paper was referencing the so called “75% rule”, which is criteria of subspecies which stated that a population would count as a sub-speices if you could analyze the traits of organisms in the species and, on this basis, predict whether or not they were a member of the proposed subspecies with an error rate of 25% or less. There are several reasons for thinking that Smith et al. 1997 were referring to the 75% rule and not an Fst based criteria for subspecies:

1. They referred to “differentia” implying that multiple traits can be used to differentiate subspecies. This is consistent with the 75% rule, several observable traits were the norm, and not an Fst value criterion.
2. Smith et al. 1997 goes on to state “A subspecies name draws attention to a geographic segment of a species that in some way is recognizably different”. This appeal to recognizable differences clearly implies that subspecies are differentiated based on observable traits, as in the 75% rule, and not a molecular genetic analysis.
3. As demonstrated by Haig et al. 2006, large teams of researchers reviewing the subspecies literature have never heard of Templeton’s Fst criteria. Haig et al do, however, spend several paragraphs talking about the 75% rule.
4. As is evidenced above, an Fst criteria is not, in fact, commonly used. But the 75% rule was. Given that Smith is an expert in subspecies taxonomy who has been writing on the topic for decades, it is therefore far more likely that he was talking about the 75% rule than Templeton’s contrived criteria which can’t be found anywhere else in the literature.

Thus, Templeton’s paper is based on an extremely misleading reading of Smith et al 1997 and fails to establish any Fst criteria for subspecies.


Appendix 2: Joseph Graves and Sewall Wright

Joseph Graves is a biologist who has written several books and countless articles arguing against the biological existence of races. In his writings he often says something such as this about Sewall Wright, the inventor of Fst values:

“Wright felt the latter, measured by Fst was equivalent to the subspecies used by taxonomists (also called biological or geographical race.) Population subdivision can be calculated at individual genetic loci or for numerous genetic loci simultaneously. Wright’s statistic can range between 0 and 1.00. He arbitrarily suggested that the minimal threshold for the existence of great variation was Fst = 0.250 and moderate variation Fst = 0.15 to 0.250. He examined individual loci derived from protein electrophoresis from a variety of species, finding a range of differentiation from 0.023 to 0.501 (average Fst= 0.16.

Subsequent studies of multiple loci, including whole genome analyses, have generally shown human Fst at much less than Wright’s critical value.” –Graves 2006​

As we have already seen, Sewall Wright did not think that Fst values should be a criteria for sub-species. He literally dedicates an entire chapter two the fourth volume of his X to race and never mentions Fst values, not does he anywhere else state that they should be used as a criteria for subspecies.
In fact, on page 85 Wright cautions readers against using Fst values as a straight forward measure of genetic differentiation:

We will take F = 0.25 as an arbitrary value above which there is very great differentiation, the range of 0.15 to 0.25 as indicating moderately great differentiation. Differentiation is, however, by no means negligible if F is as small as 0.05 or even less” – Wright 1984​

Thus, Graves is misleading readers by separating these two sentences, only showing his readers the first, and thus stripping it of its proper context. Wright’s views do not, in fact, lend credence to the idea that human races do no exist.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/variation-within-and-between-races/

`

 

More on the Realism of Race and it's Common and Biological use.

I'm am not a fan of Colloquial use of Race.
People who share merely dark skin are NOT the same Race.
Australian Aborigines and sub-Saharan Africans are both 'black' colloquially, but are VERY different Races.

Races are SETS of features evolved over Tens of thousands of years.
So that even if a Pygmy was an albino, NO one would mistake him as 'white/euro/cauc.'
The "same" black hair on different races .. isn't. It's texture is easily differentiated.

But people's common Self-Identification of their Major Racial Group is Incredibly accurate
and not anything like the arbitrariness Graves claims/implies.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
Hua Tang,1 Tom Quertermous,2 Beatriz Rodriguez,4 Sharon L. R. Kardia,5Xiaofeng Zhu,6 Andrew Brown,7 James S. Pankow,8 Michael A. Province,9Steven C. Hunt,10 Eric Boerwinkle,11 Nicholas J. Schork,12 and Neil J. Risch3,13
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Abstract
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program). Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups
(white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan.
Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories.
Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.​

`

 

There's no lie being told by Joseph Graves in any of the quotes you cited. He stated that Sewall Wright developed the concept of Population Subdivision and used FST values to measure the degree of genetic differentiation between subpopulations within a species.

What he said which both you and the author of the video overlooked is that modern Population Geneticists have used Wright's concept as the threshold for identifying the existence of biological races (FST> 0.250). He didn't say that Wright believed this and actually acknowledged Wright's position on the concept of race in the book which I pointed out to the author of the video.

In another email Graves also told me that the criteria for identification of subspecies were arbitrary but that evolutionary biologists develop a scientific definition for subspecies classification in order to test whether or not the actual genetic variation within a species fits their definition.

Graves is speaking from the position of an expert on evolutionary biology and evolutionary genetics. His arguments are supported by some of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world including the American Anthropological Association, The Genetics Society of America and The National Academy of Sciences.

As far as population genetic structure matching self-identified race/ethnicity those self-identified racial/ethnic categories are socially defined and while the Ancestry Informative Markers used by Population Geneticists can give you an indication of relatedness to certain geographic populations their ethnicity estimates are not an exact science and there is overlap in the genetic markers used to identify genetic relationship to these populations.

I tested this science on myself. The difference in overall African ancestry between Ancestry.com and DNA.Land was 6% (Myheritage was 79% African so closer to AncestryDNA). Ancestry.com has a disclaimer stating that they can not tell you whether or not you have ancestry from a specific Native American tribe (my family tradition is that one of my recent ancestors had Cherokee ancestry) and most of their samples of Native Americans are taken from Western States in the USA, as well as Central and South America (good luck finding answers to that branch of your genealogy if your recent ancestors are from the Southeastern United States).

Some geneticists have stated that Siberian, Northeast Asian and even Middle Eastern ancestry shows up in test results for African-Americans that may actually come from Native American ancestors (DNA.Land said I was 1.1% Northeast Asian and MyHeritage said my 2.6% Asian ancestry comes from India!).

So while I self-identify as African-American and all tests of my DNA data say that I am predominately of African descent, mainly West African, the differences in DNA results between companies, inability to identify specific ethnic groups due to poor sampling and overlap in genetic markers between populations means that these ancestral DNA tests are not as definitive as they are advertised to be. Plus social definitions of race are not consistent with biological definitions of race.

While there is debate in the scientific community over the existence of biological races in the human species the idea that reputable scholars such as Graves are just lying and deliberately misrepresenting the positions of scientists they cite are often made by people who lack the educational background and reading comprehension to make that claim. That is why he didn't bother to argue with the author of the Youtube video. The author made an error in his reading of Graves' post which Graves explained to me via email. I have debated this Youtuber elsewhere on another message board and will invite him to comment on this and another thread I will make related to the subject.

 

That would be your usual FALSE.
The video maker acknowleges Graves first interpreted/cited Wright correctly.
THEN/subsequently and DISHONESTLY abused the citation to say Wright set .25 as the std for race.

So the video maker who you know and say is civil, calls Graves a Liar.
Which also makes your posts......um... 'wrong'.

It's funny when you self-impeach, and you do it often.
YOU were read as being about 3/4 sub-Saharan by Both services, and indeed that is about the average for American Blacks. I have used many times.
Only proving there ARE Major/measurable Racial Groups. and they ergo can be tested.

As did my incredible study of self-identification of race, in which 99.86% of subjects Correctly identified their Major Biologiocal race/cluster.

So why can't they be tested as such?
That was the Graves' article MAIN unerpinning point in your other OP.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/article-reveals-racial-iq-gap-is-not-genetic.424151/
"No race/No Racial IQ."

But Four (White/Hispanic/African/East Asian) Major groups/Races can be self and Biologically identified with great accuracy.. and ergo Tested as such.
So Graves/Your Op article is WRONG again.
It's all about ambiguation for these Dishonest clowns, but for me it's about clarification.
It's an IQ thing.

Marching Band College Graves either dishonestly or stupidly not only cites Wright on Fst as a Race measure, but still uses his ".25%," even though it's beyond clear Fst is interesting, but not a break point criteria to Deny Race as House Scientist Graves DOES.

In fact, and again, even when Chimpanzeees are added to the mix with humans, FsT difference is only ".16" !
So using the Goofy-Graves criteria, Chimps would not only NOT be different enough from humans to be a subspecies/Race, they wouldn't Nearly qualify as the separate SPECIES they are.
I mean, That's EMBARRASSING.

You seem so impressed by someone with a title.
Perhaps the rare perceived [black] Race intellect hero.
To me, he's just another person who happpens to be 'a scientist.'
Race-acknowledging Standard text 'Speciation' author Coyne, OTOH, is world class, not a black college flunky.

As someone (excuse me) who has always been of high intellect, I oft marvel at the Lack of IQ of so many in positions of authority.
I'm not impressed. I see right through him.
It oft takes me only a few instinctive (seconds) or weeks of research to destroy their lifetime's worth.
As again, I did in your other thread highlighting a goofy graves article. (NOT study)
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/article-reveals-racial-iq-gap-is-not-genetic.424151/

So devatstating was my post you tried to say it was "derailing" and get it thrown off.
Who would try that underhanded trick, unless Even he knew it was Gameover.
That Races have differing abilities in different areas is obvious and tested.

When showing the "starved" but outstanding/WAY Over-represented Black athletes who probably have 100 people on the top 110 in the Marathon, but in Unstarving American cities and towns, they drag 300-400 points behind Asians and Whites on the SAT.
We all know what's true.
You only have to be very sci-literate (and dishonest or politically driven) to write a narrative to turn the truth on it's head.
And that's what Graves/Templeton and the even worse/derivative Sussman are.

Graves is a sleaze, probably in the 110-120 IQ range, (but still a good 2 SDs above the US-Black avg) but not near anything that impress or even enter a debate with me. Though through a lifetime of work, he knows more terminology.

The test differences between Asian/Whites and Blacks/USA Blacks are DRACONIAN and evidence their circumstance at home and abroad.
The excuses for the huge and embarrassing differences are laughable, but a profitable industry for the PC to try and Rationalize.

Everyone wants to believe we all start equal.. and all those "nasty racists" should stop pointing out the truth, even though it IS the truth. Most want research stopped, and one can't even get money for research of this un-PC topic without going to orgs like Pioneer that other PC clowns (like SPLC say are "Racist" "Hate", etc.) then blame them for.
See the is/ought fallacy in the video.

And instead of continuing the discussion here, you Sneakily started a New thread without all the other background material I posted above.
Can't blame you for not liking my string title, but it's true.
You not only repeat Graves Lies, you believe as them Gospel.

So smitten were you, I had to many times make you understand the difference between "Rebuttal" and "disagreement."
(because you saw him as a de!ty, it didn't occur to you)
That's an indicator in itself. It was like hero worship meets illogical.
Now at least you ackowkledge there is disagreement.
Your welcome.

PS: I may revisit some Other areas you didn't respond to above in a subsequent post.

.

 

Comments like this are why your reading comprehension has been questioned.

This is what I actually said:

I stated myself in the original post that the estimates of African ancestry were comparable. I only pointed out the slight difference between AncestryDNA and DNA.Land (80% vs. 74% = 6% difference) and said that MyheritageDNA was closer to AncestryDNA. I don't dispute the finding that different DNA companies that analyzed my raw DNA data estimate that I am about 3/4 Sub-Saharan African (75%) and predominately West African. I acknowledged this and THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT!

Somehow even this simple fact went over your head. I used my own DNA results to test the accuracy of the ancestral DNA tests, while pointing out some of their differences in results and limits as well as test the trait prediction results of a DNA company that claims they can make a prediction for likelihood of increased intelligence. I met every criteria asked of Great Axe (1. Typical African-American ancestry 2. Head Measurement 3. No history of trauma or family stressors that could stunt my IQ 4. Psychometric research on my intelligence).

DNA.Land's genetic intelligence test failed to identify genetic markers indicating increased intelligence despite the fact that a licensed professional examined me for a psychological evaluation to test my IQ, for a scientific study on my class and determined that my standardized achievement test scores indicated that I was highly intelligent.



The genetic intelligence test was worthless which was actually admitted by the test takers. There are too many genes related to intelligence to expect them to be unevenly differentiated across geographic populations...which is exactly what Joseph Graves and other experts on evolutionary genetics have been saying for years!

Genome-wide Association studies are the death blow to Scientific Racism. Population Geneticists already refuted these arguments decades ago but now that the human genome has been sequenced and we have conclusive evidence that genetic differences between human populations do not determine differences in intelligence.

Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008 )

[/img]http://i64.tinypic.com/2dlkw8x.png[/img]



Your failure to respond to this research or even show the ability to understand it destroys your credibility as a debater capable of discussing Race and Intelligence at a high level. When you can provide a legitimate rebuttal then we can have a real debate.

 

This Amazing Study shows that contrary to the black college Graves claims, that Races/Groups absolutely can be identified both by themselves AND Biologically, and therefore Absolutely CAN be tested as such.

My advice is to Ignore all the Graves Spam you see.
(tho I realize that's at least 5 times on most pages in the section, unlike the discussion anywhere else this board, or the whole internet for that matter)
So it isn't easy, but the world Tested, still tests, and absolutely can test in the future for Race and IQ in these groups, and probably a few more quite easily.
(White, East Asian Hispanic, and African)
The self-reported race of individuals is mindblowingly accurate.
`

 

There's nothing amazing about it.....

While population geneticists can identify the geographic origins of the majority of a person's ancestry that does not mean that the genetic clusters they identify are biological races. Ancestry and biological race are not the same. The study you cited uses the algorithm STRUCTURE which could find genetic clusters within the the same geographic location and call those populations races. Modern population geneticists do not consider population and race to be synonymous. The scientific definition of race used by evolutionary biologists is a sub-species that is on the cusp of speciation.

My own DNA test results confirm exactly what scholars like Graves and Templeton were talking about. While these ancestral DNA tests are great for identifying blood relatives and give some indication of genetic relationship to certain populations the Ancestry Informative Markers they use are not unique to specific ethnic groups. There is a lot of overlap depending on the distance of the populations that are sampled. Also because of discordant variation physical characteristics that are commonly associated with race do not mirror genetic relationships. This was also proven in a court case where scientists classified an ancient North American skull known as Kennewick Man.

Kennewick Man was classified by the Forensic Anthropologist George Gill as being racially Caucasian. His dental traits were closer to the Japanese Ainu and Polynesians but genomic analysis revealed that he was genetically closest to modern Native Americans allowing the groups claiming him to legally have the skull buried in accordance with their religious belief that their ancient ancestor's remains should not be disturbed.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26087396

"Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans. In order to resolve Kennewick Man's ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ∼1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide."

"So in a famous legal case that had major implications for the population history of America Gill's defense of the concept of race failed to hold up to the test of modern scientific research. Bones don't lie but because of discordant variation among human populations anthropologists can draw incorrect conclusions about genetic affinity of skeletal remains." - EgalitarianJay


Science has moved beyond your discredited racial schemes. Genetic research will advance but it will not allow you to validate claims of racial differences in IQ having a genetic basis. The genetic research which you refuse to address has already proven conclusively that your racial beliefs are not true.

PSEUDOSCIENCE begins with a hypothesis— usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible— and then looks only for items which appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Notice how often, when you are asked by a friend about what should be a question of fact if the topic were not pseudoscience, the opening phrase is, “Do you believe in ESP?” (or flying saucers, or prophecy, or Bigfoot)... not, is the evidence good, but rather, do you believe, without raising dull questions of evidence. Generally speaking, the aim of pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to investigate and find out what’s actually going on, or to test various possibilities. Pseudoscience specializes in jumping to “congenial conclusions,” grinding ideological axes, appealing to pre-conceived ideas and to widespread misunderstandings. Not just Creationists, but 20th Century pseudoscientists of all flavors, from J. B. Rhine and Immanuel Velikovsky to Rupert Sheldrake, have underlying their claims and assertions an anachronistic world-view that essentially rejects all or most of the tested, reliable findings of science as “unacceptably materialistic!” The general public tends to view pseudoscientists as “mavericks” who are working slightly beyond the “accepted” boundaries of science. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Pseudoscientists invariably represent a world-view which is not simply unscientific or pre-scientific, but rather militantly antiscientific. - Rory Coker

 

Lyin Graves.. and Templeton have already been DISCREDITED in this very thread.
They are clueless about Race/subspecies, BOTH using .25 FsT as a standard.
An Indisputably False standard also already debunked numerically, and with other Subspecies delimited with lower/much lower numbers.

Race is Morphological Difference caused by Genetic difference that is significant enough so that members of the groups can be separated and reunited 75% to 95% of the Time.
In major human groups we achieve near 100%
There ARE races according to the originators/Giants of the modern terms.
Ernst Mayr, Sewall Wright (abused by Lying Graves), and more recently Jerry Coyne.
The latter perhaps the world's foremost Evolution/Genetics expert and author of the Standard Text "Speciation".
All agree there ARE human Races

I've already addressed "Pseudoscience" and whose been "Ignoring evidence."

`

 

The scientific community has spoken: Joseph Graves has only been cited 2,123 times.

 

In Rowe's 2001 review of Graves' oft-cited mass market paperback,

"Graves' push for abandoning the racial concept partly depends on his using a definition of racial group that is extremely restrictive, requiring that races have '...hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups' (p. 5). However, the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, which he offers on the following page, emphasizes race as a genealogical line, a lineage, and offers that races differ '...in the frequency of hereditary traits' (p. 6). Racial groups are like a large extended family; people in them share a common ancestry, are somewhat inbred, and share some physical resemblance because of their common genes. Natural selection has produced marked phenotypic differences between racial groups; but large numbers of neutral genetic markers can be used to identify lines of ancestry.

Graves seems to ignore the trait frequency concept entirely. Dutch caucasians (the tallest in Europe), and Japanese Asians differ in mean height because of their different genetic ancestries. That their height distributions may overlap does not invalidate a racial group concept. Similarly, two racial groups could have the same mean on an hereditary trait, but different variances.

In some places, Graves' effort to debunk race falls wide of the mark."

Nobody defines race in this narrow context, and clearly Graves' intent was to so narrowly define the term as to construct a straw man easily demolished.

What a joke this guy is.

 

Your definition is worthless.

You could take a group of red-heads in Ireland and a group of blondes in Sweden and claim with 100% certainty that red-headed Irish and blonde Swedes were different races based on morphological difference of hair color run STRUCTURE and show that they are different population groups distinguishable genetically and morphologically.

New York post - Meet the Biracial Twins No One Believes Are Sisters

The concept of race in biology, anthropology and genetics has not been considered to be applicable to human genetic variation for nearly a decade according to mainstream scientific consensus. The concept has been eradicated from discussion in high school and college textbooks. Much like Intelligent Design and Creationism begging to be taught in academia it is simply not the case that your racial schemes have support among reputable scientists today.

Some disagreement in the scientific community and consensus are two different things.


Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

List of Scientific Organizations representing Scientific Consensus supporting my sources:

1. The American Psychological Association

2. The American Anthropological Association

3. The Genetics Society of America

4. The National Academy of Sciences

5. The American Institute of Biological Sciences

How many can you name that support the position of your sources? Not only did Graves get Frank Miele and Vince Sarich's book Race: The Reality of Human Differences rejected by a publisher he recently signed his name to a letter with over 140 signatures submitted to The New York Times Book Review containing criticism of Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History by leading experts in the fields of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Biology.

When it comes to support in the scientific community the difference in credibility of your sources compared to my sources is tremendous. Think about who criticizes your sources and who accepts their argument vs. who criticizes mine and who excepts their argument.

Even if you were correct about the existence of biological research (we at least agree that human genetic variation exists and that's not in dispute. Your claim of a racial hierarchy in intelligence has been thoroughly refuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Racial theories

• Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races.[233][234]

PSEUDOSCIENCE appeals to false authority, to emotion, to sentiment, or to distrust of established fact. A high school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology— though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields! A show business celebrity swears it’s true, so it must be. A physicist says psychic Smoori Mellar couldn’t possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common: “If it makes you feel good, it must be true.” “In your heart, you know it’s right.” “Follow your bliss!” “Use your intuition!” Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies: “There’s plenty of evidence for flying saucers but the government keeps it secret.” They almost always argue from irrelevancies: “Scientists don’t know everything!”— but perhaps we weren’t talking about everything, maybe we were discussing the evidence for the tooth fairy and Santa Claus! - Rory Coker


http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html

Joseph Graves, an African-American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West in Tempe, notes that most people and researchers who try to establish correlations between various natural abilities and skin color are not geneticists.

These people don't know evolutionary genetics. They talk about interesting issues in race and biology. And since, I think, there are no real races, I wonder what these issues are. It makes me angry that I have to take time from my research (on the genetics of aging) to argue about something that shouldn't even need to be discussed (Blum).

 

Graves' personal definition was proven worthless. Rowe, 2001.

 

This is not accurate.

There are basic skeletal differences between human population groups that generally align with the self-designated term "race" which are used in establishing the gender and race of a skeleton, such as in a missing person or a homicide victim.

Similar, of course, with DNA as well. There are clear differences in human sub-populations, whatever you want to call them.


Racial Identification in the Skull and Teeth
Jodi Blumenfeld
The University of Western Ontario

Colorado police use DNA to 'draw' killer in unsolved triple murder

 

Rowe's review is worthless and was addressed by me in another thread.

"I remember this review quite well. Rowe did a great job of mischaracterizing my book. However I also remember seeing this as a sign that my work was on the right track. You know your greatness by the vehemence of your enemies." - Joseph Graves

Actually it is accurate. Look at the information provided in post #11. George Gill actually lost a court case to study Kennewick Man who he racially classified as Caucasian based on skull structure. Analysis of Dental traits grouped him with the Japanese Ainu and Polynesians but genomic analysis revealed that Kennewick Man was genetically closer to modern Native Americans than to East Asian, Polynesian or European populations.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26087396

"Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans. In order to resolve Kennewick Man's ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ∼1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide."

"So in a famous legal case that had major implications for the population history of America Gill's defense of the concept of race failed to hold up to the test of modern scientific research. Bones don't lie but because of discordant variation among human populations anthropologists can draw incorrect conclusions about genetic affinity of skeletal remains." - EgalitarianJay

I don't dispute that DNA analysis can be used to identify an individual person or family relationships. They are admissible in court for paternity tests and the identification of criminals. Bones and teeth can also be used to identify the remains of a deceased person. No credible scientist disputes that. However to say that Forensic Anthropology or Population Genetics validates the concept of race as a biological reality is inaccurate. Human genetic variation exists but it isn't structured according to traditional racial schemes.

For example like the failure of Gill in the Kennewick Man case ancestral DNA tests are very unreliable for identifying ancestral relationship to populations such as Native Americans for admixed people. President Donald Trump offered Senator Elizabeth Warren, who he often mockingly refers to as Pocahontas, $1 Million dollars to take a DNA test to prove that she had Native American ancestry.



Tests like AncestryDNA would be very unreliable for that challenge given how few Native Americans survived the genocide inflicted on their people by European colonization. There are very few Native American tribes available to be sampled and the few that remain that aren't heavily admixed with Europeans can not provide you with a DNA match unless you have ancestry from those specific ethnic groups. So for example if their tests are on indigenous groups from the Western United States, South and Central America they aren't going to tell you anything about ancestry from the Southeastern United States.

Further advances in genetic research should tell us more about ancestral relationships to specific populations but it very much depends on sampling and methodology. Right now the attempt to make trait predictions is very preliminary. I was very unimpressed with DNA.Land's inability to even identify my height which is supposed to be highly heritable. I will try 23andMe next as well as FamilyTreeDNA and make an update on the reliability of their tests. But clearly when it comes to genetic intelligence and personality tests current DNA technology is very unreliable at predicting those traits.

Bottomline: Scientific Consensus does not support the position that human genetic variation structures according to traditional racial schemes.

Scientific Consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

List of Scientific Organizations representing Scientific Consensus supporting my sources:

1. The American Psychological Association

2. The American Anthropological Association

3. The Genetics Society of America

4. The National Academy of Sciences

5. The American Institute of Biological Sciences

 

As I stated, this is a reposting of the same post on multiple threads that is used to debunk a multitude of things but isn't addressing any specifics offered, such as Rowe's points. In that, what we're given are ideological alarm-bells in the form of genetic fallacy.

Slight variations of the same post have been put here and here and above. None of them address the specific points Rowe made about the manner in which Graves took it upon himself to classify the term 'race' which was the foundation for his arguments.

Furthermore, none of the "associations" you posted on the bottom have stated conformity to the definition given by Graves in his mass-market paperback. This is a mish-mash of random generalized sources lacking specific attention to the posts you're replying to.

Why don't you ask Graves why he chose such an odd, tightly-defined definition of race for which to use for his book attacking the concept of race?

That contains absolutely nothing. Rowe gave verbatim quotes of Graves' writing, thus he "mischaracterized" nothing.

He posted Graves' own words and cited the page numbers where the claims were made. Rowe noted this goal post shift by Graves using his own invented definition and why that definition is scientifically untenable. A dismissive email quote of a couple sentences does not defend his work on a scientific level.

Pointing to another thing when I showed specific shown skeletal differences between races doesn't prove your assertion that racial classifications as they've been historically known not only have no merit but aren't even in use today. Indeed, in fact they are, as such as I said with missing persons and homicide victims.

Well no, most of them died to contact with small pox for which they had no immune system defense. That error aside, I wasn't referring to "Ancestry DNA." I have no idea why you brought up AncestryDNA and 23andme as I cited neither one. Both of those products are good on the continental-level population but are flawed when it comes to national/ethnic groupings.

There were a series of cold case hammer attack murders in Colorado for which a composite of the attacker was drawn using DNA technology once developed. White male, brown hair, light eyes. Right on the money.

Further, that genetic profiles match self-identified categories are absolutely nothing new and are not remotely new science.

The idea that there are no identifiable population groupings between human beings is absolutely false. We have it established in terms of both skeletal structure and DNA.

Your and Graves' argument seems to be about nitpicking over the specific definition of "race."

I find it rather odd you keep pasting this same text at the bottom of nearly every single post you're making as if the list you give all gives a thumbs-up to everything you've typed above it when clearly this has not happened.

 

Rowe falsely accused Graves of making up his own definition which is allegedly inconsistent with traditional biological definitions of race. This is factually incorrect and the information I presented proved that.

I gave you a scientific reason (discordant variation) for why Forensic Anthropology does not validate racial classification citing a major legal case where your source failed to classify a skeleton racially.

I did not say that Forensic Anthropologists do not attempt to classify remains from skeletons racially or that there was no biological variation between humans that would not be useful for forensic analysis.

Forensic scientists could analyze the hair of the remains of a woman and determine whether she naturally had red hair or blonde hair. Does that make redheads and blondes different races?

They brought the diseases and they sent blankets infected with small pox to Native American tribes (biological warfare).

We are talking about Race and Genetics and whether population genetics research validates the existence of biological races. I provided genetic research showing that it does not.

Population groups (people grouped by Geographic Ancestry or Ethnicity) and Biological Races (Phylogenetic Sub-species with distinct evolutionary lineages) are not the same thing.

My mentioning of AncestryDNA and 23andMe is a counter to your claim that DNA testing is reliable for identifying race. It can identify geographic ancestry with the aforementioned limits (e.g. poor sampling, measurement error, overlap in ancestry informative markers between populations etc.) but it does not validate the existence of biological races or the idea that all measurable differences in phenotypic traits between groups have a genetic basis.

Ancestral DNA databases have also been used to catch criminals.

I am simply reminding you of the real scientific consensus on the subject. Since you have failed to make the case that Graves is a liar who is wrong about his research it is important to note that scientific consensus is on his side.

 

Those pictures are just Funny distractions and probably posted as such.
My study (and others, and most of the planet) do Not consider Swedish and Irish separate MAJOR Race groups!

And a Hybrid twin set/Freak of nature is also not relevant,
and does not refute a study where 99.86% got their Self-Identified Major Race confirmed by Biological testing.
3631/3636 White/African/Asian/Hispanic had Race Self-ID consistent with their Biological Race ID.

If you can accurately group them by Race, you can IQ Test them as race, and we've been doing just that for decades.
Graves is at best wrong, more likely, still Lying/Misdleading

As to the 1996 APA report YOU linked, it acknowledges a 1 Standard deviation Between [USA] Blacks and Whites and said it is NOT test bias and NOT socioeconomic.
(Which also, btw, tends to Validate the other relative gaps/Differentials found in the last Half Century.)
Leaving not much else But genetic cause.
But of course at that time/1996 there was no Human Gene map, nor any for genes for IQ found by then, so they correctly say they have no evidence.
("Yet" of course)

Summary of that report:
https://www.intelltheory.com/apa96.shtml

""..The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one Standard Deviation, although it may be diminishing) does NOT result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, NOR does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.""":

Which in 1996 one would have to agree with.

But it in fact DISAGREES with you on Race Basis as well as score basis.
`

 

You did no such thing. You posted a two-sentence whine from Graves disagreeing with Rowe but offering zero substantiation for what was wrong with Rowe's quotation and page number citation from Graves' book. What in his verbatim cite with page number did Rowe get wrong? Where has Graves specifically addressed and corrected this?

My source? I never argued Kennewick man. Outliers in difficulty in classification certainly do not invalidate the general rule. Clearly there are differences between human population groupings generally correspondent to continent of origin. Scientists do not refute this.

Then you're forced to admit there are in fact genetic differences between human population groups which allow trained observers to note by use of skeletal samples.

Race doesn't exist but yeah there's all these genetic differences between population groupings that correspond to the general usage of the term race as it has historically been used? What?

Nobody said hair color equaled different race. Where has science shown that hair samples prove a given individual was of a different continental origin than another?

This is an oft-quoted racial smear-myth which has been thoroughly debunked here. It's a racial conspiracy theory. Nobody that has promoted this nonsense has given any scientific evidence that pox can be placed in a blanket and transported and transferred to others like a Jack in the box.

There are clearly differences in human population groupings that go to a genetic level. Whether you classify them as race, or choose to harp on that label, is your choice.

Graves does himself no service in raising the bar to ensure himself a victory, however. He seriously damaged his credibility with that tactic.

Defining it as "phylogenetic" is to use Graves' invented definition -

Rowe already addressed the problems with this approach that fly in the face of known science.

Clearly it is. As I said, although those databases were not in my argument, are quite accurate when it comes to continental origin of ancestry which generally corresponds with concepts of race as we know it.

On what subject? You've quoted the same list on a litany of subjects all of which you claim are in direct agreement with everything you post on every thread.

"Graves is a liar"? I've shown he moved the goalpost in his book and that he quoted bad heritability data on IQ. In his book is clearly an intentional stunt to ensure himself an easy victory without question, the other at best can be chalked off to him recklessly opening his mouth on a subject outside of his expertise, but considering what he did with his book, I think it was another attempt to move the goalpost in his favor.

Whether you are willing to admit that or not is another matter, and I already know you'll never do so.

And his fewer than 2,200 cites certainly don't lend credibility to him, either.

 

Of course you know full well that the 1996 report is outdated and has been superseded by more recent genetic research (Genome-wide Association studies). All the APA said in 1996 is that the cause is unknown but evidence doesn't support a genetic interpretation. With the Human Genome Sequenced recent Genome-wide Association studies validate the conclusions population geneticists have made for decades.

Suzuki: Now remember, neither Rushton nor Jensen is a geneticist. After Jensen published his work in 1969 The Genetics Society of America, the leading Genetics organization in the world, overwhelmingly approved a GSA statement that such work as Jensen's cannot prove a genetic basis for IQ difference in races. World class population geneticists, two of the leading population geneticists in the world, Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Standford and Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford and Richard Lewontin of Harvard have written books on this subject!

In October 1970 of Scientific American, Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza published the definitive popular work entitled Intelligence and Race in direct response to Jensen's work. Their opening sentence is, "To what extent might behavioral differences between social classes and between races be genetically determined?" 11 pages later, and that's a long article in Scientific American, they conclude, "The question of a possible genetic basis for the Race/IQ difference will be almost impossible to answer satisfactorily before the environmental differences between U.S. Blacks and Whites have been substantially reduced. There is no good case for encouraging the support of studies of this kind on either theoretical or practical grounds."

Rushton: I'm very disappointed in Dr. Suzuki's presentation. Dr. Suzuki says my ideas on race are too esoteric and he shows however little more than moral outrage. He says that people like me should be rooted out and if I heard correctly he actually called for me to be fired. Well...that is not a scientific argument. I don't know that there is very much of substance in what he said that I can respond to. He went on about Arthur Jensen and IQ and Genetics and completely ignored all the work on two-egg twinning and the 60 other variables that I mentioned including the ranking of the three races.


Suzuki: My position was very clear. I did not choose to discuss the points he raised because I tried to point out very clearly that Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the genetic relationship or the correlation of the genetic basis that allows comparison between races is simply not possible. And I did not hear you rebut that in any way. And that is the definitive work!

Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008

Nisbett et al. (2012) represents the new scientific consensus of the American Psychological Association. The world's foremost experts on intelligence research are on the same page as the experts in the fields of biology, anthropology and genetics.

Human genetic variation does not conform to your racial schemes and can not and will not be used in the future to validate the claim that average IQ differentials between socially-defined racial groups have a genetic basis. If you don't believe me feel free to show me anyone in a relevant field who is making scientific breakthroughs that could change this prediction.

 

Good grief, what a grand flourish.

I see no such group of people clamoring around Nisbutt back slapping him. I see a number of scholars trashing his methods and conclusions and pointing out specific fatal flaws in his arguments.

Indeed, his critics have flambeed him so badly, you have given up trying to defend a point-by-point analysis of his book which undercuts the foundational claims of a multitude of his base arguments.

All anyone has to do to see this is to Google Nisbutt's little book title and look for the review by James Lee. That's not counting other critics.

Nisbutt is an activist hack and he cannot defend his own work from criticism.

There is no rational reason to use theories in a book to advance a view contained in it which has been so thoroughly dissected and debunked by qualified scholars and a multitude of international heritability studies outside of the stubborn motivated reasoning of the reader and the unwillingness to consider the flaws of the author due to a deep emotional investment in the ideas contained in that book.

motivated reasoning
“The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.”-- H. L. Mencken
Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments.--Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber

We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself. --Chris Mooney

Motivated reasoning is confirmation bias taken to the next level. Motivated reasoning leads people to confirm what they already believe, while ignoring contrary data. But it also drives people to develop elaborate rationalizations to justify holding beliefs that logic and evidence have shown to be wrong. Motivated reasoning responds defensively to contrary evidence, actively discrediting such evidence or its source without logical or evidentiary justification. Clearly, motivated reasoning is emotion driven. It seems to be assumed by social scientists that motivated reasoning is driven by a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. Self-delusion, in other words, feels good, and that's what motivates people to vehemently defend obvious falsehoods.

 

Hmmm....




Description: Richard E. Nisbett, The Rockefeller University: At the spring 2012 Parents & Science program, psychologist and bestselling author, RICHARD NISBETT, challenged popular assumptions about heredity and IQ, arguing that school and home environments are the key determinants of intellectual accomplishment. Dr. Nisbett is a professor and co-director of the Culture and Cognition Program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Rockefeller University neuroscientists BRUCE MCEWEN and MARC TESSIER-LAVIGNE also joined him in the discussion. April 12, 2012

Richard Nisbett





Curriculum Vitae for Richard E. Nisbett

http://www.foundationpsp.org/nisbett.php

Richard Nisbett was born in West Texas and schooled at Tufts and Columbia, where he earned his PhD working with Stanley Schachter. He taught at Yale from 1966 to 1971 and then was recruited to the University of Michigan, his current home, by Bob Zajonc. His early work advanced the field’s understanding of causal attribution processes, sparking productive research that continues to this day on self-other differences in inference and on the limits of introspection and self-report. Along with Lee Ross, he later greatly expanded the study of causal attribution processes in Human Inference, which combined insights from social psychology with ideas from the emerging field of judgment and decision making to offer a penetrating examination of how people interpret the past, understand the present, and predict the future. That work was followed up a decade later with Ross and Nisbett’s, The Person and the Situation, which argued that human social behavior can be best understood in terms of three broad themes—situationism, construal, and the Lewinian idea of tension systems.

Nisbett went on to examine the rules people follow when tackling difficult problems of induction and deduction, and how their ability to follow abstract rules can be improved through formal instruction. This gave way to a broader interest in intelligence and how it can be enhanced (summarized in his book Intelligence and How to Get It) that continues to this day. Beginning in the 1990s, Nisbett has played an important role in focusing social psychologists’ attention on the importance of cultural determinants of human behavior. His work on culture has featured his characteristic methodological virtuosity and flair, and produced two notable trade books, The Geography of Thought and Culture of Honor.

Nisbett is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, and a winner of the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association, the William James Award from the Association for Psychological Science, and the Distinguished Scientist Award from the Society for Experimental Social Psychology.


Tributes

As a top researcher in the field, Dick expects his students to excel to their greatest potential. He is genuinely caring and devoted to his students. It is an honor to be the student of such an inspirational and compassionate researcher. The fact that Dick has produced such a large number of excellent PhD students, so many of whom have gone on to become influential researchers themselves, is a testament to his excellent mentorship.

In addition to nearly 10,000 citations on Google Scholar, recognition for doing ground-breaking work in the field of Psychology, a multitude of honors including by the American Psychological Association he is also cited in a book you claimed you read and many more college textbooks while presenting the research in his book at some of the most prestigious Universities in the world.

While dismissive of James J. Lee's article (he called some of the arguments pathetic) he noted that his book was reviewed favorably and his work survived peer-review in one of the top psychology journals. He's clearly a world class Psychologist. Given that recent genetic research supports Nisbett's conclusions on the cause of the Black-White IQ gap (100% Pure Environmental Model) I see no reason to write a defense of him by one of his lesser known critics. The only major critics I've seen of his work on race and intelligence are anonymous posters on the internet especially bloggers who are threatened by his criticisms of racial hereditarians.

 

Yeah so every single study, as I've remarked before, is regarding young kids and Nisbutt as Lee and others have mentioned, bases his arguments on those early years before the longitudunal washout takes place.

It's rather confusing that in lieu of addressing these flaws in Nisbutt's argumentation, you would re-post them and then post the usual (outdated) photo and CV as if they are adequate in themselves in addressing the many flaws in his assertions.

Indeed, his own partner in grime, Eric Turdheimer in his interview with Molyneux when asked directly about malleability and what parents can do to help their kids (and the context remains small children), stated --

Simply having an impressive-looking CV doesn't mean your work can't or won't be compromised by errors in logic, poor conclusions, or inclinations to make stretches in facts to promote a political worldview.

Lee's takedown of his book was devastating enough to Nisbutt that he admittedly didn't even read it all, let alone formulate a response. I'm sorry you have taken on the environmental theory by investing stock in that junk quality book.

You cannot take tests on five year olds and act like they're adults. You can ignore the Wilson Effect all you want, but that they can't provide anything other than on small children when heritability is lowest undercuts their argument in and of itself. They can't show these big environmental/malleability effects on older populations because they aren't there.

Nisbutt's calculations - as are the ones from Dickens and Flynn (and Joseph Graves' email quote) are based on a false assumption of high environmental effects on IQ through the lifespan. In other words Nisbutt is ignoring established consensus and is offering an untenable outlier argument, in my opinion for political reasons which is an academic ethics problem.

If you're going to try to validate someone based on their CV instead of quality of their work, keep in mind that Shockley won the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Nisbutt's work on this subject is so blatantly bad as shown by Lee that Nisbutt couldn't take the obvious step in defending his methods and conclusions and went out with a literal whimper.

And why not? I bought his book on the cheap; he wrote it in a very sneaky way. He carefully mentioned studies that point toward environment, applied those as if they were representative across the lifespan, ignored conflicting data, ignored Wilson Effects, ignored the washout of "boosted IQ" data about 2 years after treatment ended, ignored other childhood studies which showed a lesser or no SES impact on IQ, and touted a single study about a closing IQ gap which isn't replicated elsewhere, and pretended that other studies that show the gap isn't closing don't exist. On the surface, his work looks impressive enough. Beneath the surface, it has more holes than Swiss cheese. Of course that's why the book is for mass market consumption and isn't a textbook, eh?

Longitundinal twin studies continue to show that children reared in adoptive environments increasingly have IQs like their biological parents and unlike their adoptive parents and adoptive environments:

"CAP" stands for Colorado Adoption Project. "TAP" is Texas Adoption Project:





Studies continue to show increasing genetic influence throughout childhood into adulthood --

If later-childhood and adult heritability is so easily thrown off kilter by environment, how is it possible to use DNA to estimate heritabilities on-par with adoption studies results?

Richard Nisbutt is blowing hurricane-force winds out of his ass.