The IQ gap between countries is no evidence of an alleged IQ gap between races

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by AltLightPride, Mar 22, 2018.

  1. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    There's also the fact that, for most of human prehistory, Africa rather than northern Eurasia seems to have been more conducive to the evolution of modern human intelligence:

     
  2. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Most of the arguments Rushton makes in his VDare article were already addressed in the threads I linked to where I refuted you and others who cited Rushton point by point.

    How many times do we need to go over Brain Size & IQ, Racial Admixture studies, the estimated heritability of intelligence, adoption studies or the questionable reliability of IQ tests on Sub-Saharan Africans? We have debated these issues over and over. All of this research was an attempt to validate Rushton's evolutionary arguments which were refuted by Joseph Graves 20 years ago.




    Nisbett wrote a full book supporting his views which got favorable reviews from the academic community. You champion Charles Murray and Linda Gottfredson as respected supporters of your views but where are the videos of them in actual academic debates with opponents in the scientific community? Graves said that Murray ducked a debate with him in hopes that genetic research would advance to the point where he could gain more support for his theories.

    Politicalforum.com - Charles Murray ducked a debate with Joseph Graves

    If you can provide evidence that Murray, Gottfredson or any scholars who support "Race-Realism" are making a serious attempt to defend the credibility of the position go ahead and show it. In the meantime perhaps you would like to take a crack at responding to the genetic data which shows that candidate genes related to intelligence do not show a racial distribution.


    [​IMG]

    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]
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Jabrosky likes this.
  3. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't refute a 2010 Study/Answer/counterargument of Nisbett - and which cites his own words - with your 10,000th posting of a 21 year old Boobtube featuring discredited NC A&T House Scientist/nano-brain Graves.
    It's SPAM.


    It's always the same junk/identical links/pictures in every string, and in fact, oft on consecutive pages of the same string.
    ALL the same.
    Replete with boobtubes (most the same 2 or 3), pictures of study authors!, silly jpgs, and other Smoke and Mirrors/Distraction nonsense.
    All for the illusion of content by Volume and color.

    Just part of Repeated attempts to Bludgeon/Bury rather than debate opponents.
    Even in what should be an intellectual written format, it's highly INDICATIVE some people try to use Brawn over Brains.
    That's just the way some people/Groups INHERENTLY fight. Physically and clumsily, if not poignantly.
    Long multi-posts, Pictures, and boobtubes impress them, and they think it does others. Or at least brushes them back by shear size.
    It doesn't.

    (congrats on your 40,000th? Graves citation.
    I'm betting that's the most any person has cited any other on the entire internet)
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Empress likes this.
  4. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,222
    Likes Received:
    425
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The average British IQ is 100 and East Asians are naturally smarter than Western Europeans with or without the effects of European colonization. But Hong Kong is the most urbanized city in East Asia because it was a British colony, which is why Hong Kong's average IQ is few points higher than that of Japan or Korea. The same could be said of Singapore, which was also a British colony until the Japanese takeover. Japan and Korea had never been colonized by European powers and Korea was a Japanese colony until 1945.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  5. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Several people including the ones I posted on the thread which you had closed, not counting other threads here and elsewhere. Pretending those people aren't there isn't helping your cause in the least.

    Hey, did you ever read that Nisbett book that Lee dashed into the four winds with a relentless criticism of its bad methodology and false conclusions?


    This is yet again an appeal to popularity fallacy, nor does your cite of the supposed numbers that study cited give an indication of the context in which they were cited. Supporters, critics, or someone like Myers, who was trying to point out arguments on both sides? Either way, appealing to a number of cites isn't an argument to validate the cite. That's a way of trying to assert the validity of a cite in light of you can't debunk critics of that cite.


    False. You're conflating his work in going outside of his arena of training and expertise which wast the source of criticisms as a means of attacking the work he did within his field. I'm drawing a distinction, you're intentionally not doing so as a weapon to attack his body of work without addressing why his work in psychology is bad.

    Plenty of people hate the US Government and view it as racist, yet you aren't calling people whose work is funded with federal grants as invalid, so let's dispense with the false arbitrary, and cheap means of attempting to undercut a PhD's work, shall we?

    What did I do that's specifically special pleading? I said Rushton's work within his field of training was valid, and indeed the man has been cited over 18,000 times yet you claim his work in toto is invalid because of some theoretical studies he did which went outside his field.

    You can't claim a study cited 650 times makes it valid and then claim a man cited over 18,000 times isn't valid because like, some people hate his guts. Don't move the goalposts.

    Turkheimer has sourced nothing to defend his views on the Wilson Effect, and I looked. What I did find is that the Wilson Effect is accepted as fact based on a scholarly consensus in the field. Turkheimer is a nay-saying outlier. Posting naysaying lacking qualifiers is weak.

    Turkheimer and those like him who discount the Wilson Effect have not explained why they have done so, nor have they made an argument for the invalidity of the increasing heritability of IQ into adulthood which in some studies is greater than .90.

    Apparently so, at least if it's the Wilson Effect or any the relevant psychological data that Rushton presented to demolish Nisbutt/Turkenheimer's environmental thesis.

    I've looked for his explaining his dismissal of the Wilson Effect and have found zero information, as I stated above. If you've seen them, please direct us to them.

    Firstly, you've falsely claimed that I haven't debunked Nisbutt, Turkheimer, and the other sources you've used, when in fact I have done just that and repeatedly so and not in one instance have you replied with a similarly scholarly source directly addressing those critics as to why they're wrong about Nisbutt, Turkheimer, etc. You've yet to directly address a single critic and their specific points about Nisbutt, Turkheimer's etc's methods and conclusions, and on this thread you're again resorting to personal attacks against Rushton as a means to "debunk" his extensive and thorough point-by-point refutation of Nisbutt/Turkheimer.

    He said he did in the video you posted. He said he found the Wilson Effect "uninteresting" and gave no specific reason why he dismisses it, yet cite any data for why the consensus is wrong. He simply stated a personal opinion - which clashes with the consensus and moved on. There is a reason why the people you cite all fixate on early childhood IQ tests and the Wilson Effect is it.

    [​IMG]

    You're confused. Difficulty in measuring "what exact boundary line is race" doesn't mean there can be no genetic differences between groups, as such as you've already conceded with different dispositions with regard to reactions to medications, transplant compatibility, and vulnerability to disease. Human population groups share genetic similarities that they do not share with other groups. Some of those differences are advantageous, some not.

    Graves is beating a total straw man. Nobody has made this claim, anywhere, ever. Sub-Saharans don't even have the lowest average IQ on earth. You've quoted his argument against Shockley before, as if I was arguing Shockley and am familiar with it. This is another straw man. I don't even know who the guy is, let alone what he believes. You're playing make-believe I am arguing his position and bashing it, much like you've done with Rushton.


    At least Nisbutt admits it is in fact highly heritable, now if he can just defend his position beyond that point.

    Science having difficulty discovering things rapidly isn't relevant to anything and proves nothing regarding the false position of high environmental malleability in teen or adult IQ.

    Stop beating a straw man already. I've never argued anything about "racial heirarchy in mental characteristics." It seems to me if I was a "white supremacist" trying to make this claim, I wouldn't concede that Northeast Asians and Ashkenazi Jews consistently score higher than whites on average in IQ studies.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  6. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah so you just tried to attack a scientific rebuttal by launching personal attack, guilty by association attack, and genetic fallacy.

    Worse, you just cited an organization that just paid out over $3 million dollars to a man in a libel settlement.

    And for the record, using large, bold type doesn't help your argument any.

    Just saying.
     
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  7. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You continue to falsely make anti-Rushton "racial theory" arguments at me as if I were anywhere arguing his theories. How many times must I continue to correct you on this?

    Citing a bit of his work in psychology which is his field of legitimate expertise does not equal citing a theory of his you hate. I cite many different people, nearly all of them are not Rushton.


    Logical fallacy is trying to attack a scientific rebuttal of a book you like with personal attacks and large-font ad homs from the SPLC. THAT is what debating in bad faith looks like.

    Where have I tried to "manipulate and ignore" evidence?

    What exact argument for "Scientific Racism" do I make? Name it. You keep posting rebuttals of arguments I've never made be it from Shockley or Rushton, because you've been angry that what I HAVE done is repeatedly show the flaws in your cites and you have been unable to defend those flaws in spite of that the very argument of your cites relies on the validity of the flawed papers.

    I have more than once, including but not limited to posting critics of his and Nisbutt's collaborative works. You haven't been able to respond.

    Be specific. Heritability has been shown to increase with age. Where has been shown that adult IQ is environmentally-dependent on childhood IQ?

    Here's yet more proof your environmental adult IQ thesis holds no water:

    Only if impacted by something like severe, prolonged malnutrition as I have stated. Since environmental impact on adult IQ is minimal, you literally have no argument.

    Please tell us how IQ can be both "malleable" and highly heritable at the same time.

    Research shows that adult IQ is heavily heritable and intelligence runs in families.

    Again, you continue to fallaciously conflate any presence of any environmental malleability with "racism" without qualifying it. Where has "equal opportunity" shown to have affect on highly heritable adult IQ? Further, what IS "equal opportunity" besides a late 20th century political catch word? There is no such thing, even among white people. Never has been, never will be. The average Chinese does not have the opportunity that the average white person has due to the poverty and oppressive regime in China, yet they have average IQs greater than whites.

    As studies have showed, such environmental impacts decrease beginning around age 5 or 7 and continue so until they're minimal into adulthood.

    Hence, the Wilson Effect.


    You've repeatedly invoked the Flynn Effect to prove that the gap is closing and continues to close. Nisbett and Turkheimer's methods and conclusions have been repeatedly contested by their colleagues.


    When environment's impact on adult IQ is around .10, how is such a large gap going to close by any environmental means? I've seen no such explanation from anywhere, let alone specific sources you cite.

    As I've stated before,

    Loehlin (2002):

    "The Dickens and Flynn model equations are derived under the assumptions of stable equilibrium and of constant genetic effects within an individual, assumptions that are perhaps more plausible for adulthood than for the early childhood years to which the authors often apply them.One way this becomes problematic is in the ambiguity about whether M in the models represents intelligence, that is, absolute level of cognitive skill, or IQ, the level of cognitive skill of an individual relative to those of his own age. This distinction is usually not very critical for adulthood; it is when considering children."

    Dickens and Flynn dismissed the Wilson Effect in their calculations.

    And as noted by Yeung & Pfeiffer (2009):

    "Racial achievement gaps in applied problem scores by grade three and letter-word scores by grade six, can be accounted for by child's characteristics, family socioeconomic background, and mother's cognitive skills. However, these covariates explain an increasingly smaller proportion of the black-white achievement gap as children advance to higher grades. Gaps in early cognitive skills are highly predictive of gaps at later ages, setting off a trajectory of cumulative disadvantage for black children over time."

    It has to be measurable to validate its impact.

    Didn't ignore - Turkheimer and Nisbutt are doing sub-par work to promote a thesis that their colleagues have repeatedly cited the flaws in.

    If adult IQ is highly heritable and intelligence runs in families due to assortative mating...
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  8. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again you've thrown another temper tantrum over the posting of a Youtube video. However neither you nor Empress responded to the genetic data I presented showing that genes related to intelligence are not racially distributed. This is the most important information in the thread because it validates the evolutionary and genetic arguments of Graves and my other sources.

    You keep talking about The Wilson Effect as if the high heritability of intelligence is being challenged by my sources when it is NOT. What they dispute is the position that because intelligence is highly heritable that means that the cause of group differences in IQ are partially or predominately genetic. The fact that you keep repeating this argument shows that you do not understand the position. Intelligence can be both highly heritable (and more so in Adulthood) and group differences in IQ still be 100% environmental in cause because of differences in non-shared environment between the groups.

    Any research you cite that does not directly address the cause of racial differences in IQ does not challenge my position or that of my sources.

    Everyone makes mistakes once in awhile. Even the article that criticized the SPLC acknowledges that they did great work organizing Civil Law Suits against racist hate groups like the KKK in the past. Rushton was punished by his his University for violating ethical guidelines and cited pornography in his research, presenting it as serious scientific evidence supporting his claims. He was also President of the Pioneer Fund whose predecessors helped finance Nazi Scientists and Eugenicists who are responsible for some of the most horrible human atrocities in history. Rushton clearly had a serious problem with credibility in the eyes of any sane individual and certainly among his peers in the academic and scientific community.

    I've already addressed Rushton's arguments in that article in many threads in the past. There is no reason to do it again so I simply linked to previous discussions and showed why he is not a credible researcher. If Taxonomy26 is going to post images to mock opponents there's no reason why I can't do the same.

    Manipulation is one of your favorite dishonest debate tactics. In this thread you have demanded that I respond to every critic of Nisbett and Turkheimer and use these criticisms as a basis to attack their credibility despite many of the arguments having nothing to do with the actual topic being discussed (the cause of group differences in IQ). You do this while ignoring evidence such as the genetic data supporting my position. You actually stated that the most significant research in the thread doesn't matter.

    You can't have a fair discussion if one side is being dishonest in the way they address the topic.

    There are many environmental variables that can impact IQ both to boost it and depress it. I don't need to identify one or a few environmental effects on IQ and explain the degree to which they impact IQ in a negative way for lower average IQ within in a society, only point out that the environment is not equal and that the argument for a genetic cause to group differences in IQ is based on a pseudoscientific premise with evidence that invalidates it.

    When you come back with actual arguments related to the cause of group differences in IQ and address the genetic data I presented we can have an actual debate. Rehashing the same arguments over the high heritability of intelligence which isn't being challenged is pointless and doesn't advance discussion.
     
  9. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Your response was disappointingly short. You don't seem to have much more to say for yourself.

    Your entire argument is centered around this false claim:

    Adult IQ is heavily heritable, not heavily environmental, thus it is a genetic impossibility that adult IQ can be dependent on quality of environment, let alone a specific one you cite which is "discrimination."

    Would you like more studies to prove the increasingly genetic impact on IQ and the lessening of environmental influence and greater genetic influence as a child ages?


    You haven't cited research that directly addresses the cause of racial differences in IQ as being "discrimination" let alone show how such a thing can be measured, or how we can know by scientific means - not a personal rationalization - it is one of the environmental causes in IQ, let alone enough of one to where it would substantially impact the gap.

    How is a 1 SD difference in average IQ caused by .10 adult environmental influence? The only examples of high environmental impact in IQ that are out there are related to children under the age of about 5. Not for adults.

    After the $3 million dollar settlement, now approximately some 60 other people and organizations are considering suit against the SPLC as well. Rather than trying to rationalize your use of these people, why not address Rushton's criticisms of Nisbutt's methods and conclusions so as to legitimately, scientifically validate them? Ad homs won't cut it, dude.

    The issues you've pointed out with Rushton's work revolve around his venturing outside of his realm of training into other theories, NOT his work within his PhD in psychology. Again, I've already pointed out you're lumping them together intentionally as a means of attacking his entire body of work.

    Where has anyone, ever shown his work in psychology to be false? He's cited in psychology textbooks, has over 18,000 cites.

    Restating a claim doesn't prove the claim.

    You cite the guys and then can't defend them when their peers point out shortcomings in their work. If you can't defend their shortcomings, you certainly can't float the idea that someone's "ignored the most significant research."

    You can't claim to seek an honest and fair discussion when you try to dismiss a scientific rebuttal with a slew of personal attacks.

    Except again those studies are based on two things. 1) Questionable conclusions by Nisbutt which others at times say aren't even replicated or at other times contradicts itself, (Bouchard, 2013) 2) You falsely assume environment has a similar impact on adult IQ as it does with children which is patently FALSE, 3) You've falsely stated that adult IQ is dependent on childhood environment which is impossible since adult IQ is heavily dependent on heritability and environment has a greatly diminished impact, 4) If you wish to claim early life environment - or any time of life environment - has a large enough impact on adult IQ to explain a gap, yes, you are obligated to defend that notion. I've already showed it wrong.

    And as noted by Yeung & Pfeiffer (2009):

    "Racial achievement gaps in applied problem scores by grade three and letter-word scores by grade six, can be accounted for by child's characteristics, family socioeconomic background, and mother's cognitive skills. However, these covariates explain an increasingly smaller proportion of the black-white achievement gap as children advance to higher grades. Gaps in early cognitive skills are highly predictive of gaps at later ages, setting off a trajectory of cumulative disadvantage for black children over time."

    You're actively denying science here.

    You keep ignoring them and drawing false conclusions regarding the environmental impact of IQ in adulthood as if environment were shown to have as much effect. Sorry, it doesn't.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  10. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm no expert on psychometric topics, I admit, but I believe claims like this are used as textbook examples of popular misunderstandings about heritability. To cite a couple of examples:

    ---Understanding Heritability

    ---What is Heritability?

    As an aside, while looking up the topic of heritability as it relates to IQ, I found this .pdf of interest (though the text dates from 1997, so I am open to it being outdated):
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  11. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates

    Estimates

    Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood in the United States.[17][21][22] It may seem reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. However, that the opposite occurs is well documented. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 0.2, around 0.4 in middle childhood, and as high as 0.8 in adulthood.[9] One proposed explanation is that people with different genes tend to seek out different environments that reinforce the effects of those genes.[17] The brain undergoes morphological changes in development which suggests that age-related physical changes could also contribute to this effect.[23]

    A 1994 article in Behavior Genetics based on a study of Swedish monozygotic and dizygotic twins found the heritability of the sample to be as high as 0.80 in general cognitive ability; however, it also varies by trait, with 0.60 for verbal tests, 0.50 for spatial and speed-of-processing tests, and 0.40 for memory tests. In contrast, studies of other populations estimate an average heritability of 0.50 for general cognitive ability.[21]

    In 2006, The New York Times Magazine listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[24]
    `
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Empress likes this.
  12. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I just showed a number of direct cites on this thread that state the accuracy of what I said. There is a popular misconception about the heritability of IQ due to censoring, activist media.

    Your own cite showed what heritability is: IQ heritability, the portion of a population’s IQ variability attributable to the effects of genes.

    Environment has been shown to have a diminishing effect on IQ as a person ages into adulthood, as I also showed on this thread. Gould was an anthropologist, not his field. The IQ controversy doesn't revolve around the Bell Curve book, that's a myth. The Flynn Effect has been addressed.

    The letter you linked states, "Moreover, some of Herrnstein and Murray’s conclusions regarding human evolution such as the development of cognitive castes and IQ dysgenics, arise from their belief that IQ heritability is at least 60%, and is probably closer to the 80% values obtained from adoption studies. Our results suggest far smaller heritabilities: broad-sense heritability, which measures the total effect of genes on IQ, is perhaps 48%; narrow-sense heritability, the relevant quantity for evolutionary arguments because it measures the additive effects of genes, is about 34%. Herrnstein and Murray’s evolutionary conclusions are tenuous in light of these heritabilities... Our statistical analyses cannot, of course, be considered definitive. Age may affect IQ heritability, even though the age model does not gain much support from our analyses."

    That is absolute bullshit. It is old, and it is inaccurate. Refer to above.There is a slew of international data to show this and it doesn't circle around Herrnstein and Murray in the least, which is a false characterization this letter's authors are trying to paint.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  13. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    When did I say that literally everything Rushton has ever written or cited is false? My criticism of Rushton is directly related to his pseudoscientific claims of racial hierarchy in intelligence. That's the actual topic of the thread not Rushton's full body of work. So you are now changing the subject and trying to manipulate me in to reviewing Rushton's full body of work. I don't need to do that to make the point that his claim that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ is false. As it is Rushton does have many critics in the field of Psychology, many of whom are cited in the Pseudoscience of Rushton thread that I made.

    So we've already had that discussion several times on this message board. In this thread I cited Turkheimer as a reliable source on the cause of the IQ gap. You have repeatedly insisted that environment can not explain a significant percentage of racial IQ gaps because of the high heritability of intelligence which increases with age and intelligence running in families. Those conclusions are not denied, but they don't refute the position that environmental differences between groups are the sole cause of racial differences in IQ. As Jabrosky noted you don't understand the concept of heritability. You have ignored the genetic data that refutes the genetic hypothesis. If you continue to misrepresent my position, display a lack of understanding the research presented in the thread and ignore evidence that invalidates your argument then you have given me reason to consider debating you to be a waste of time.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  14. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not going to bother arguing about the exact figure for the heritability of IQ within a population. But the other sources I cited made a point about heritability addressing variation within a population in a certain environment, not necessarily between different populations with different environments. That was what the metaphor of the flower beds described in my second source was meant to illustrate.

    Your whole argument (namely that high heritability for IQ within a population necessarily translates to a genetic basis for "race differences in IQ") is premised on the sort of fundamental misunderstanding that introductory explanations of heritability emphatically refute. High schoolers learning about heritability from their science textbooks could see through your fallacy.
     
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  15. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You repeatedly digressed from his being legitimately cited regarding flaws in studies by Nisbutt and Turkheimer with a rant about his ideology. You've repeatedly falsely accused me of sharing his whatever theories about "racial heirarchies," when I don't even know what they are. Then you've argued against Shockley at me as some kind of generalized rebuttal.

    Nope, you just keep dredging it up and attacking it as a means of dismissing everything he's ever written.

    You quoted him making a statement but not presenting data. We quoted critics to his and Nisbutt's conclusions in specific, as well as their methods in which they draw those conclusions which were both found wanting by their colleagues. You've not defended the scientific veracity of their statements in light of critics.

    "Adult IQ is dependent on the quality of the environment children are raised in" is probably the single most out-of-left-field statement I've seen you make, at least in quite a while, and you've shown zero to defend it. Adult IQ cannot possibly be dependent on quality of childhood environment when environment influence on adult IQ is minimal.

    "Currently, much emphasis is being placed on SES by heritability interactions (Nisbet et al., 2012). The results of the various studies are mixed, with some failure to replicate and some results in the opposite direction. It may be that the effect is real in childhood and young adulthood but fades in adulthood." --- Bouchard, et al 2013.

    Jabrosky posted an old letter to a magazine which attempted to debunk the high adult heritability conclusion by Herrnstein and Murray, and it turns out those two were correct and their critics wrong. If I misunderstand heritability, then so do all of the international scholars that have done international studies and concluded that genetic impact on IQ increases dramatically from toddlerhood to adulthood and things such as childhood SES are increasingly irrelevant as a child ages to adulthood.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  16. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    High heritability has been shown internationally. In humans in general, environmental influence of IQ declines beginning about age 5 and becomes minimal into young adulthood. Period, dot, the end.

    Please don't try to pass off you know squat about heritability when you posted an anthropologist and an old letter to the editor with bad conclusions as if they were legit.
     
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  17. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I only cited the "old letter" (the source of the lower heritability estimates) as an aside to my main point, which is that you barely understand what heritability estimates even mean. You seem to think that high heritability estimates for IQ within a given population necessarily translates to a genetic explanation for IQ test results differing between populations, when any idiot Googling "heritability" can easily find rebuttals to that very fallacy.

    ---What is heritability?

    That's literally the first source (not counting Wikipedia) I found when I entered the phrase "heritability" into Google's search engine.

    I don't care if one of the cited examples of how heritability works (the one about heights of men within a poor village) came from the "unqualified" Stephen Jay Gould (whom I understand was a paleontologist and a evolutionary biologist rather than an anthropologist like you said). He was only describing a concept generally accepted in the field, hence why you can find it in introductory web pages on the topic. Heritability estimates address variation within a population in a certain environment, not differences between populations with markedly different environments.
     
  18. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Racial hierarchies in intelligence simply refers to the position that some races are more intelligent than others due to genetic differences and that their intelligence can be ranked. You have actually supported this belief for years apparently without being familiar with the term. When you state that genetic differences between populations are the cause of group differences in IQ you are expressing a belief in racial hierarchy in intelligence no matter what rank ordering you choose (e.g. Jews > Asians > Whites > Blacks or Whites > Asians > Native Americans etc.).

    William Shockley is merely one in a long line of scholars who have supported Scientific Racism. He preferred to call his field of study raciology. Today they call it race-realism while many in the academic community who oppose it still call it Scientific Racism. Graves referred to "Shockley and his co-conspirators" which would include Rushton and all advocates of Scientific Racism.


    I've never stated that everything Rushton has ever written is false. I've only pointed out that I've addressed many of those arguments before and that Rushton was proven to be a biased researcher with a racist ideological agenda. If you have any specific points you want directly addressed which challenge my position (that there is no genetic component to racial differences in IQ) feel free to list them. Robert Sussman provided a good summary in his book of Rushton's biased research and proposal of crackpot theories by addressing research from different disciplines including biology and psychology.


    Turkheimer referenced his research and that of others to support his position on different subjects related to IQ in an interview. The studies many of which I have contain data supporting his position.

    These heritability estimates are being made for Adult IQ within populations. They have no implications for the cause of differences in IQ between populations that live in different environments. Turkheimer's research showed that the heritability of IQ is modifiable depending on the Socioeconomic Status of the families children are raised in. The wealthier families are the more important role genes play in the variance in IQ of the children. The poorer they are the more of a role environment plays in the variance in IQ for children. This is what one would predict if environment had a strong impact on the nurturing of intelligence.

    The impact of SES declines for a person as they age so if they have low genotypic IQ this will become more apparent once they reach adulthood compared to individuals with similar Socioeconomic Status. Obviously the nurturing environment is still very important. If you take a pair of identical twins (nature's equivalent of genetic clones) raise one in a good environment and one in a bad environment (controlling for example quality of education, parents, nutrition, neighborhood etc.) raise them to adulthood and measure their mental ability with an IQ test or behavioral evaluation the test results will be very different despite their genes being identical.

    [​IMG]

    This genetic reasoning can be proven experimentally in laboratory experiments such as with plants or rats as Turkheimer mentioned. Controlling for the environment of humans is much more difficult and obviously such laboratory experiments are illegal for ethical reasons. You can not control for the environment of groups raised in racially stratified societies.

    Heritability estimates of intelligence are meaningless to this discussion which Turkheimer stated and which has actually been mentioned in every major debate between advocates of Scientific Racism and their opponents. You can go back and watch the Suzuki and Graves debates with Rushton and hear the exact same arguments which were made by Sir Walter Bodmer and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza in their Race and Intelligence article published in Scientific American in 1970 that was approved by the Genetics Society of America.

    It isn't an appeal to popularity or authority to state that world class geneticists know more about the field of genetics than some Psychologist proposing crackpot theories. Your misunderstanding of the relevance of heritability to this discussion has been made by proponents of Scientific Racism for decades. Suzuki schooled Rushton on genetics. Graves added more detail on the fallacies of his evolutionary reasoning. Nisbett, Turkheimier and other psychologists and behavior-geneticists have provided psychometric research showing that Scientific Racism is wrong.

    Genetic data has been added to the mountain of evidence debunking Scientific Racism. There really is no one in your corner promoting this research with enough credibility to be taken seriously on the subject. Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance received a lot of criticism from the scientific community including a letter to the The New York Times Book Review with over 140 signatures from geneticists and biologists who state that Wade misrepresented their work. Charles Murray is having trouble even getting to speak at college campuses to promote his long discredited research in The Bell Curve and ducked a debate with Joseph Graves. I actually haven't found ANY proponents of Scientific Racism who have had academic debates with qualified opponents in the last 5 years.

    If your arguments have not advanced beyond misinterpretations of heritability then you really are offering nothing new to this debate.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
    Jabrosky likes this.
  19. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    That's funny, so you're denying the high heritability of adult IQ to float an environmental-dependency myth which you can apparently neither explain nor defend.

    Not interested. Don't argue rebuttals at him as if I were throwing his arguments around. Same with Rushton.

    When your response to a critique of a psychological writing that you like from Rushton is a personal attack, yes you have. You can't claim he has no credibility as a scholar when he has over 18,000 cites and is quoted in college textbooks.

    No, he made assertions. What studies did he specifically reference, anywhere?

    Well no, Nisbutt/Turkheimer's conclusions were as I've repeatedly shown, contested by other scholars, of which you've either totally ignored OR have tried to debunk via personal attacks.

    IQ studies show that the Wilson Effect relates to everyone. If you wish to claim that some group is exempted from the general rule, please show that data.

    In other words, low IQ people tend to not have high incomes. Yeah, we know this. You're trying to assert that childhood SES CAUSES adult IQ. False.

    Your rehashed flowers argument only validates research regarding severe, prolonged nutritional deficits which I've already covered. You're taking liberties to that things such as "discrimination" aka Bob not getting the job, are having a large, pervasive impact on IQ even though you can neither state how that's been measured to prove so, let alone that studies have validated the idea. You've also failed to address the decreasing environmental impact on adult IQ via the Wilson Effect, and you're obviously going to continue to do so ad infinitum.

    Ashkenazi Jews faced discrimination, evictions, assaults, pogroms, massacres for hundreds of years in different parts of Europe, yet that "discrimination" hasn't caused them to have low average IQs in spite of that the nutrition level in Europe at that time in history was inferior to today.

    Why is that?

    There is no replicated body of work to show that low genotypic IQ is overcome by a nurturing childhood environment as an adult. Nowhere. Zero.

    Except again, you're repeatedly making your argument based off a small group of people whose work has been repeatedly negatively reviewed by qualified scholars, have failed to defend their work for the entire 4 years I've challenged it not counting others, and in spite of that, you want to pass off the idea their work still magically stands.

    "You cannot control for the environment of groups raised in racially stratified societies" is a direct uncited quotation from an email from Graves who made a false statement attached to qualify that comment:

    THAT is how you prove adult IQ is dependent on childhood environment?!

    His comment was based on the higher impact of environment of IQ in small children. He made a fallacious statement in acting as if it was stagnant throughout the life span and cite environmental impact based on that. What you did here was partially quote him, unattributed, out of context, and tried to pass off that quote made with the false assumption of high lifespan environmental impact of IQ to a conversation involving low environmental impact on adult IQ as proven by decades of international research.

    [​IMG]

    I literally debunked this years ago with evidence of the Wilson Effect, and you have completely failed to defend your continued use of this quotation. Graves either was unaware of the Wilson Effect or actively ignored it and lied to you, thus yes, as I've said, your argument relies on ignoring the existence of the Wilson Effect.

    Shared environmental influence declines monotonically with age, dropping from about 0.55 at 5 years of age (Dutch data) to 0.10 in adulthood. It is noteworthy that all other estimates after 10 years of age are higher than the zero estimates from the Dutch data. These findings, of course, hold for what might be called the normal range of environments as exemplified by the ‘Dunedin Sample’. The findings supporting the ‘Wilson Effect’ are highly robust. -- Bouchard et al, 2013.


    Just as I showed above, and have illustrated this before, Joseph Graves was talking out of his ass, so no it hasn't been "defeated" anywhere.

    Again, Turkheimer and Nisbutt's conclusions and methods have been criticized by their peers on multiple occasions. Nisbutt got butt hurt about Lee demolishing him, admitted he didn't read the entire review, and then made a gossipy snarky comment about someone said something or other about Lee. Nisbutt has had since 2009 to respond to that review which cut at the very heart of his methods, and he has failed to do so, but you're saying in spite of that his being demolished in glorious detail, somehow his body of work still stands but people criticizing Rushton means he's full of steaming dung.

    Gotcha.

    Suzuki is a zoologist, not a geneticist, yet you cited him as a legit source in a rebuttal on genetics, and Graves made a false claim regarding lifespan heritability of IQ. Quite world-class.

    No, you've repeatedly posted a video of Suzuki having an ideological breakdown over Rushton's work while during the video admitting his field of ZOOLOGY (he's a zoologist so he can't "school" someone outside the bounds of his expertise, sorry) was inadequate to address topics in psychology which he found ideologically offensive. Yet again you're trying to reach and quote people commenting outside their field of training to score points even after multiple occasions in which you've excoriated Rushton for commenting outside of his field of expertise.

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

    Try passing this nonsense off to some sucker with no background in psychology because it's not going to work on me.

    What is "my corner"? You've taken quite a number of liberties to try to shoehorn me into someone's corner who you hate, simply because I have repeatedly pointed out the gross shortcomings of your arguments and sources and the scientific untenability of their arguments.

    You've not shown any genetic data that has invalidated Wilson Effects on IQ, rather I have posted genetics data that shows genetics computations correlate with the findings of twin studies and Wilson Effects.


    I haven't misinterpreted anything. Graves did, at best, assuming he didn't flagrantly lie his ass off. His entire environmental-impact argument is based on that false 50/50 assumption.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2018
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  20. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like to officially welcome you to not only the Race Realist side, but the "RacIST" side.
    Claiming East Asians are "naturally" (innately/genetically) "smarter."....
    "With or without the effects of colonization"
    no less!
    Also erasing one of the most common excuses of race deniers.

    So welcome, however unwitting the acknowledgment of Race Difference in IQ was.
    Of course, using an extension of the same chart, we could also see who is "naturally" dumber/est.
    `
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2018
  21. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is an IQ gap between races. Askani sp? Jews average IQ starts at 110. This doesn't mean much in the middle of the curve but it makes a HUGE difference at the genius end of the curve which explains why their are so many more Jews inventing and discovering stuff and why the make up a much larger portion of Nobel prizes proportional to their demographics. Israel has the highest number of PhDs per capita than any other country. I am European white, I am perfectly fine with the knowledge that on average Asians and Jews are a couple of points higher on the IQ scale than my ancestors. I don't cry racism or victim or other idiotic nonsense because psychologists have looked at the race gap for decades now and have excluded EVERY variable. Its NOT because of income, its NOT because of some silly nonsense about black kids learning to read and do math differently than white kids nor is it about any bias in the test itself. If we except physical differences among races when it comes to strenght, speed etc. then its absolutely irrational and unscientific to acknowledge mental differences that might exist.

    In the end its entirely irrelevant because IQ varies dramatically from one person to another anyways. The average is not you, unless you are literally sitting on that 100 (or 110) spot. We could also wake up tomorrow and find out that they discovered some heretofore unknown variable and that explains all the gaps or that someone added the numbers wrong or that current IQ tests turn out not to be the best way to determine intelligence.

    What it isn't is any excuse for anyone to crow about their race or belittle another race. Immigrant blacks from Africa and the Caribbean excel in education and income even outpacing native born whites in this country. So even if on average blacks are a couple points behind like whites are to Asians and Jews that isn't an excuse for failure. Unless you are literally a rocket scientist your job or business is going to be very manageable with the marbles you have in your head. Clearly other factors are far more important at determing success than just IQ. Not blaming everyone for your stupidity and whining and bitching that some other race is constantly out to get you. Probably the single biggest variable is having a two parent household. It is UNDENIABLE that having a two parent household is the best environment for success. Having multiple kids with different baby daddies is NOT doing them any favors.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2018
    Taxonomy26 and Empress like this.
  22. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Your position that if IQ is highly heritable and intelligence runs in families group differences in IQ can not be entirely caused by environmental differences is a false belief. Just because you don't understand the argument or reject the argument because you don't like the position doesn't mean it hasn't been explained to you and isn't a valid argument.

    The excerpt from Graves' book is a rebuttal to the racial hereditarian argument that the high heritability of IQ and establishment that intelligence runs in families indicates that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetic differences. This is a rebuttal to anyone who makes that argument based on research from evolutionary genetics. You have made that argument in this thread so the excerpt is relevant to your position. Shockley and Rushton are merely examples used by Graves as proponents of this position. Your lack of familiarity with their research is irrelevant to the fact that you support the racial hereditarian position on IQ.

    If you don't think that racial differences in IQ are caused partially or entirely by genetic differences then the debate is over. However you said this in the thread:

    So by your own words:

    1) People who believe races have equal genetic potential for intelligence are racist ideologues.

    2) Environmental differences can not largely (or solely) explain group differences in IQ.

    3) There are racial hierarchies in intelligence (e.g. Northeast Asians > Whites, Latinos and South Asians > Sub-Saharan Africans).

    4) Races differ in cognitive ability due to genetic differences between races in the same way that they differ for gene-based health conditions (e.g. Disease Susceptibility and transplantation compatibility).

    By your own words you fit every criteria Graves outlined in his book for identification of a proponent of Scientific Racism.

    You have nothing to complain about regarding the identification of your ideological world view. You share the fundamental characteristics of a proponent of Scientific Racism regardless of whether or not you are familiar with the research of your ideological forebears.
    The rebuttals to Scientific Racism in the book apply to your arguments just as well as they do to the scholars mentioned.

    I didn't say he had no credibility as a scholar but rather that his reputation as a researcher was tarnished by his unethical research practices and crackpot theories. That is not a personal attack. Rushton was reprimanded by his own college, the University of Western Ontario for his shoddy research and investigated for violation of Canada's policy on hate speech.

    In his own words:

    Despite his desire to portray himself as a modern Galileo Rushton was heavily criticized not only by the media, students and faculty at his University but by scientists in different disciplines relevant to the research he was promoting on group differences in IQ. Rushton got criticism by the way not only for his obsession with claiming that Blacks were mentally inferior to Whites and Asians (as well as innately lazy, violent and hypersexual) but that women were dumber than men on average which explains them being underrepresented in cognitively demanding jobs.



    Regardless of your views on his work the fact that it is marred in controversy is simply a fact which I pointed out. My references were certainly more relevant to this discussion than you calling Richard Nisbett "Nisbutt" which is childish. I also clearly provided links to threads where I directly addressed many of Rushton's arguments already. Nisbett, Turkheimer and Graves at worst have critics in the academic community who merely disagree with their work and the validity of certain arguments is debatable. They are scholars of ill repute only within the mind of people like you who feel threatened by their research. In reality they have good reputations. Rushton is actually infamous within the academic community.


    Did you even watch the video? He referenced research supporting his position throughout it. You can take a look for yourself at the many papers he has published.

    Eric Turkheimer - Curriculum Vitae

    Turkheimer is a professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia and an expert on behavior-genetics. Research on twin studies, heritability and IQ are among his areas of expertise.

    You need to show how the Wilson Effect validates Scientific Racism. It doesn't. Pointing out that Turkheimer and Nisbett's conclusions have been contested on issues irrelevant to the topic of the thread are meaningless. Your argument is both a Red Herring and a Strawman.
     
  23. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    An in depth look at The Wilson Effect


    Empress has hung her hat on the idea that The Wilson Effect vindicates the claim that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. Let's look at that claim in more detail. What is The Wilson Effect and what implications does it have for the cause of group differences in IQ?



    So the heritability of IQ is said to be as high as 0.80 with environmental influences decreasing to as low as 0.10 in adulthood. The older you get the less of a factor environment plays in how smart you are and this is based on twin studies and adoption studies. That sounds like a good case for the importance of genetics in determining intelligence. But let's take a closer look at the scholar who coined the concept known as "The Wilson Effect."


    Thomas J Bouchard Jr.


    [​IMG]


    https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/profiles/bouch001


    Department Affiliations


    Education and Background



    Specialties

    • adoption
    • behavior genetics
    • environmental influence on behavior
    • evolutionary psychology assessment
    • genetics and intelligence
    • individual differences
    • mental abilities
    • nature vs. nuture
    • twins
    Educational Background

    • Ph.D.: University of California at Berkeley, 1966.
    Awards

    • College of Liberal Arts Scholars of the College, University of Minnesota, 1994

    Prof. Bouchard (now semi-retired) is Director of the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research. The primary research project being carried out under the auspices of the center was the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (MISTRA). The study had two parts. The first part involved a week long medical and psychological assessment of identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins separated early in life and reared apart. Spouses participate in the study when it is possible for them to participate (if they agree to participate and the study had the funds to bring them to Minnesota). The psychological part of the assessment included multiple measures of personality, mental abilities, values, psychological interests, psychomotor skills, reading, spelling, writing, and a variety of miscellaneous psychological tests (Stroop Color Word Test, Barron-Welsh Art Scale, Morningness-Eveningness Scale, etc.). The medical assessment includes a psychiatric interview (Diagnostic Interview Schedule) a medical life history interview, a standard blood battery, blood for zygosity testing, wearing a 24 hour heart monitor and detailed dental and periodontal examinations. The study began in 1979 and was completed in 2000. The center continues to be engaged in data analysis.


    What the bio above does not tell you is that Dr. Bouchard is a Pioneer Fund Grantee whose twins reared apart study has been widely criticized for its research methodology.


    In Genes We Trust: When Science Bows to Racism


    https://breggin.com/in-genes-we-trust-when-science-bows-to-racism/


    THOMAS J. BOUCHARD, JR. With its legacy of Dr. Josef Mengele’s twin experiments at Auschwitz and Dr. Burt’s bogus science, twin studies fell into disfavor. In 1979, however, Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., a psychologist at the University of Minnesota, rehabilitated this line of research after reading an account of twins who had been separated from birth and were reunited at age 39. "The twins," Bouchard later wrote, "were found to have married women named Linda, divorced, and married the second time to women named Betty. One named his son James Allan, the other named his son James Alan, and both named their pet dogs Toy" (Times-Picayune, Feb. 16, 1990).


    Intrigued by the report, Bouchard obtained emergency funds from the university and arranged for the pair to be flown to him for study. To support his theory that similarities such as these were genetic in origin, he assembled a team and applied for a grant to the Pioneer Fund in 1981, stating, "Our findings continue to suggest a very strong genetic influence on almost all medical and psychological traits." To date, the Pioneer Fund has contributed more than $1.2 million to Bouchard’s Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research.


    Time, U.S. News and World Report, and the New York Times, among other publications, and various TV programs have reported Bouchard’s conclusions that shyness, political conservatism, dedication to hard work, orderliness, intimacy, extroversion, conformity, and a host of other social traits are largely heritable. the scientific data and methods of analysis upon which his conclusions are based have to date never been released for objective scrutiny.


    Nevertheless, the prestigious journal Science invited Bouchard to contribute a key article in its June 17, 1994 edition, which included an editorial reporting that a "new consensus" had been reached among behavioral scientists in the nature vs. nurture debate: genes dominate.


    Bouchard has cautiously refrained from making public statements that might be construed as racist, but he has defended the work of Phillipe Rushton, who has been outspoken about the genetic basis of racial differences in IQ and other character traits.


    So we learn the following key points from this article:


    1) The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart was financed by The Pioneer Fund.


    2) The data and methods used for the study have never been released to the public.


    3) Thomas Bouchard is a Rushton supporter.


    So the primary source of Empress is yet another racist ideologue with an agenda. Turkheimer actually talks about the problems with twin studies like Bouchard's and the methodologies used which overestimate the heritability of IQ early in the video I uploaded. I also have a book which discusses Bouchard's work in detail.


    [​IMG]


    Discussion with the author was done in this thread: Politicalforum - The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2018
  24. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Here are the important points to take from this excerpt from Sussman's book:

    1) Bouchard's study of twins is a throwback to Nazi science on twin studies and Burt's fraudulent studies which suffer from the same methodological flaws and conclusions that have been refuted by modern genetic research.

    2) The Pioneer Fund contributed millions to the Bouchard's research project on twins.

    3) In many cases identical twins were separated in early childhood, raised by different members of the same family or met and had contact long before they participated in this study.

    4) Twin studies typically do not have proper controls for non-shared environment.

    5) Bouchard's studies do not control for behavioral correlates with shared cultural environment.

    6) Epigenetic Effects on genes have been shown to have important influences on the behavior of twins as they get older leading to significant behavioral differences.

    7) Genome-wide Association Studies have failed to identify genes that produce the genotype-phenotype correlations arising from twin studies.
     
    Jabrosky likes this.
  25. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    All of those points validate the research I have already presented. The heritability of IQ is not fixed and can be modified based on variances in the environment and the genotypes being studied. So the 0.80 - 0.90 estimation for the heritability of IQ is meaningless. If even identical twins can have radical differences in their behavior because of life experience then there is no reason to believe that group differences in IQ must have a genetic basis considering the many factors that contribute to groups living in a non-shared environment. Also Genome-wide Association studies show conclusively that the claims Empress and others are making about this research is wrong. We can not assume that intelligence being highly heritable means that culture and environment can not have a strong impact on intelligence.

    There are some interesting videos on Youtube that feature twins from Bouchard's studies as well as those on epigenetic effects on behavior such as the case of two identical twins who differ in sexual orientation (one straight; the other gay despite the same genes and being raised together).





    Bias exists in scholarship and the funding and methodology of researchers do matter. They give us insight in to the integrity and motive of the scholar in addition to the validity (or lack thereof) of their research. The Wilson Effect does not validate the claim that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. That assumption is based on pseudoscientific arguments and has been proven to be wrong by modern genetic research.

    Empress and other proponents of Scientific Racism have a right to disagree but they haven't refuted this research. You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.

    PSEUDOSCIENCE displays a remarkable and characteristic indifference to fact. Writers tend simply to make up bogus “facts”— what Norman Mailer calls “factoids”— where needed, instead of going to the trouble of consulting reliable reference works, much less investigating directly. Yet these fictitious facts are often central to the pseudoscientist’s argument and conclusions! This can also be seen in the fact that pseudoscientists never revise. The first edition of any pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though the book may go through innumerable new printings, over decades or centuries. Even a book with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page is just reprinted as it is, over and over. Compare to college science textbooks, which usually see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new facts, ideas, discoveries, experiments and insights in science.

    Source: Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience by Rory Coker
     

Share This Page