The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

He said there are no racial hierarchies in brain size. Period.

I recommend that you read the article.

How “Caucasoids” Got Such Big Crania and Why They Shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001

Maybe his methodology was more scientific than others.

Are you?

Rushton is the one number-fudging and selectively citing data as Graves pointed out.

Every other study you point to is based on Rushton's research. Tobias' study is only one aspect of Lieberman and Graves' research. They provided detailed critiques of Rushton's work and showed why it is flawed.

 

So what does the data say East Asian > Northern European > West African?

Are East Asians latitudinally higher than Northern Europeans? Is Japan and Korea colder than Denmark?

Obviously, you're not familiar with statistics; you don't know the basics from previous discussion; but I just chuckle seeing that data and having someone else claim the improbable that Blacks somehow have equal brain volume as Whites.

I'm sure you have evidence to back up your statement as science is supported by hunches.

Yes; especially since I'm more educated than you.

Which number-fudging did Rushton do?

Are you speaking of the Graves study that found low-moderate correlation between race and brain size, contradicting Lieberman's and Tobias' claims?

You understand any positive correlation, regardless how small, contradicts your position?

Have you figured this out, yet?

You point out Graves' research that contradicts Tobias' and Lieberman's claims. Why is that?

The study on 40,000 children by the U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project was not done by Rushton.

I suggest you learn to read.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=350804&page=5&p=1063829193#post1063829193

https://archive.org/stream/jstor-108924/108924_djvu.txt

This is just one of Lieberman's lies. Further the table is called 'Racial Hierarchies' not 'Racial Brain Size Hierarchies' and several of the sources only discuss hierarchies in intellectual ability, not brain size.

 

At this point I expect I will be asked to go through the table pointing out all of the other lies. To which I would respond that continuously copy pasting the same table without fact checking its claims is irresponsible to the point of disgust. Unless, like Lieberman, the aim is to deceive intentionally.

Repeating something you know is false again and again. What kind of excrescence in human form would do something like that?

 

He aggregated figures on Tobias' table (American Negro with Kenya Negro) in order to deliberately ignore the data that shows an inconsistency in his racial hierarchy pattern (American Negro > American White, French and English).

No, it doesn't because my position is that brain size is not a causative factor for intelligence which a low to moderate correlation doesn't prove.

I never said he conducted the study just that it was part of his research.

Like I said before Lieberman didn't lie it just so happens that groups classified as Caucasoid (as well as Mongoloid) are included in the Asiatic category.

Yes, go through the table and point out the other examples of Lieberman lying. You made the assertion so you need to back it up. Lieberman didn't lie about Darwin, you even provided the quote from me that shows he was telling the truth about Darwin promoting racial hierarchies.

Ofcourse it is anti-Semitic to slander an entire group of people (Jews) as dishonest. There's no such thing as "dishonest Jewish debate tactics." Your source is a known anti-Semitic propagandist. Claiming your position is simply the truth really is disgusting.

 

Ok, so now we're on cranial size. Well, here's part of an abstract from a study about the impact of malnutrition and brain development (emphasis mine):

There is an environmental impact on brain size. So even if you are genetically inclined to have a big brain, not getting enough nutrition as a child can inhibit brain growth. This means that any study that correlates race to brain/head size is meaningless unless the author(s) of the study take into account childhood malnutrition.

 

We won....they lost. Who had to have their cities re-built because they had listened to guys like mike?

 

Always love this kind of "logic" from the racists and bigots-

"I don't hate Jews (blacks, whoever)....it's a known fact that they are evil. I'm just pointing out the facts."

Shows how cowardly they are...they have to TRY to deny what they are.

 

The point is Lieberman represents Darwin as reporting a Caucasoid > Mongoloid hierarchy which is false.

Are we to believe you have copy pasted this table for years without checking if it is accurate?

 

Why do culture-only types come out with this "there is some environment effect (never quantified) > all differences are due to the environment". It's such a stupid argument. How much does malnutrition affect brain size? 10%? 0.01%? And your source states "Most part of students with the lowest scholastic achievement scores present suboptimal head circumference (anthropometric indicator of past nutrition and brain development) and brain size." Why is that assumed to be due to malnutrition?

Don't adoption studies negate "childhood malnutrition" as a significant factor?

 

Interestingly Lieberman actually cites Davis on the table as well and lists the category as Asiatics. I don't believe there was any intentional deception on Lieberman's part. He simply noted that according to Davis and Darwin Europeans had larger brains than Asiatics which he equates with Mongoloids.

I had no reason to question the accuracy of the table.

 

You do now. How about checking some of the other claims. It's embarassing when one parrots false material isn't it. How about backing up Lieberman's claims.

Does "hierarchies" refer to brain size/cranial capacity in each case?

 

Since you're the one claiming Lieberman is lying about other sources the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim.

I can look at other sources in my free time but you're the one who is making a claim about the sources right now which you have not proven.

 

Oh I will do. I've been through all of the sources and Lieberman is full of (*)(*)(*)(*). I think misrepresenting Darwin says enough. We're building up quite a portfolio of demolitions of your copy pastes. Cheers!

 

Excess neurons don't transmit impulses?

 

They do but they're not needed for the transmitting of impulses to the integrative centers of the brain.

 

These were the data Tobias originally fudged with?

Could you repeat this babble to me again? I asked you how Beals' study showing low correlation between brain volume and race does not disconfirm your claim of no brain volume differences between races?

Are you even capable of reading? How is your response relevant to my question?

A study with the data unchanged is rejected because Rushton did research on it.

How is one to understand the incoherence of this argument?

What is preventing you or Nisbett from doing your own research on the study?

 

Everyone east of the Rhine.

The allies killed a lot of civilians; but their battlefield record is less impressive.

If you want to give points to people knocking down buildings, I guess al-Qaeda is kicking butt, right?

 

He didn't fudge data he controlled for body size. Since when is controlling for variables fudging data?

There is some variance in brain size between populations. The low correlations they report are related to human skulls becoming slightly larger and more spherical in Northern climates. Are you happy?

That doesn't support your position that because skulls are slightly larger in Northern climates those populations with larger skulls are therefore more intelligent.

The Neanderthal had much larger crania than modern humans but they weren't more intelligent than modern humans.

I consider your citation of the study to be irrelevant because Rushton's general arguments on the subject were refuted.

 

Right back at you. Unlike Rushton's corrections, which are in-line with the mountain of evidence that you reject, you seem incapable of distinguishing an outlier study with scientific consensus.

Imagine his lone 'corrections' never being reproduced in any other study on brain size and race.

Get back to me when you have dozens of MRI/intelligence studies showing no correlation between brain volume and IQ.

That claim cannot be proven as you don't have an actual Neanderthal to test.

Beyond that, unpacking your incoherent argument can be fun.

So, brain volume/IQ comparisons between Neanderthal and homo sapien are legitimate, but such comparisons cannot be made between races.

Could you please further expand this line of logic?

The study showing Asian children having larger head volume than taller Black children is 'refuted' because a scientific consensus shows East Asians have larger brain/skull/head volume than Whites than Blacks?

 

In fact it's you and your endless loop of the five same copy pastes that have been refuted again and again.

 

I haven't been refuted. Rayznack just harps on the same point about brain size & IQ over and over.

 

You make assertions (copy paste the assertions of Lieberman and Tobias) but don't back them up. You claimed brain size couldn't be compared between races in 100 studies, because variables were not controlled, then failed to explain which variables were not controlled. It was then shown that the one variable you claimed Tobias controlled, body size, was in fact over-controlled. You disparage 100 surgeons based on one assertion from 1 scholar, and totally fail to substantiate it. This is slander.

 

Nonsense.

I told you which variables needed to be controlled. Tobias had a whole list. It wasn't 100 studies and if I had access to those studies I could analyze further to identify which specific studies didn't control for which variables but I don't. In fact as I recall Lieberman said that it's not clear in most of the studies which variables were controlled. I don't even have Tobias' study it's just part of the scientific literature which both Rushton and his critics have commented on. You keep whining about copy/pastes but my quotes back up my point and they haven't been refuted. I showed rayznack how Rushton's cold winter theory has been refuted and all he keeps doing is harping on the moderate correlation between brain size & IQ then asked me about how I can make comparisons between Neanderthal and homo sapiens but not human races.

First of all of course we can't give a Neanderthal a modern IQ test but we can look at the archeological record to analyze the sophistication of their culture. It stands to reason that if Neanderthal were completely replaced by modern humans that the reason is because modern humans were more intelligent and out competed them for food using more advanced survival techniques which the archeological record indicates.

Neanderthal had bigger crania and were more cold adapted than the modern humans who migrated to their territories and replaced them. If brain size determined intelligence then the average Neanderthal would be a genius! Clearly bigger brains do not mean greater intelligence and we know this because smaller brained people can be smart. The more spherical head shape found among Europeans and Asians is a product of adaptation to cold climate consistent with Bergmann's principle and doesn't afford them greater brain power than Africans. Those points haven't been refuted.

 

Your copy paste asserts without demonstration that variables were not controlled. That's not good enough.

100 surgeons vs. one lying Communist Jew.

Pretty poor odds.