Sure. I think establishing that Graves is a useless affirmative action clown is relevant the question of why people are racist, so please list his research on "nanoengineering", although we both know there isn't any.
If your agenda is to discredit Graves you can start by providing evidence that his academic career is the product of Affirmative Action and explaining why he is not a credible source on the subject of race and biology (e.g. a clown). So far you have failed to do this but I did email Graves about nanoscience and nanoengineering so we'll see what he says about his own research.
Your most extreme examples of environmental impact on IQ were met with parallel instances of malnutrition preventing growth from infancy. It is beyond me why you would compare minor height stunting with extreme environmental impacts on IQ as if they were analogous. Incredibly, you had no response to the fact you came to conclusions - and have reiterated them - without any shred of evidence to support them. What part of constructing an argument is giving you trouble? Does not your brain comprehend you have not supported your claim, yet? I'm also amused by yet another obvious problem with your own argument which has cropped up in your use of evidence. Have you not wondered yet how Southeast Asians could have a higher IQ than American blacks despite the obvious that their environmental situation is far worse than for blacks? How is it you have not realized you are sawing the branch on which you're standing? Please, by all means, show how American blacks are exposed to more pollution, or have higher rates of malnutrition, or attend lower quality school than Laotians, Thais, and Vietnamese who all have higher IQ than black Americans. I also have not name called you, but stated a fact that you are unable to read graphs and have demonstrated a general deficiency in technical knowledge and reasoning ability.
The failure speaks for itself. Mathematically illiterate posters will not get it of course. But the question was why the differences that both Galton and Darwin observed exist, even after adoption, not "are there any similarities". Saying "Darwin noticed the exact opposite" was just a lie. Graves "overall point" was just irrelevance and a failure to answer the question. The entire field of postmodern sociology has a lot to do with Marxism.
My argument was simply that environmental differences can stunt IQ more than they can stunt height. I supported that argument with a simple hypothetical experiment explaining the detrimental effects environment can have on IQ. All you are doing here is constructing strawman arguments to distract from the fact that intelligence is highly influenced by environmental factors. You interjected height in to this discussion as a counter point to my claim that environment can stunt IQ and when I showed you that environment can stunt IQ more than it does height you present even more strawmen arguments. This is what I am talking about when it comes to dishonest debate tactics. You don't know how to have a normal, honest, civilized discussion. You abandoned your arguments about slavery improving the athleticism of Black Americans, interjected height in to the discussion, now you're talking about Southeast Asian IQs compared to African-American IQs. Stop changing the subject! I also notice that you completely ignored my comments about Joseph Graves' career background. I guess you don't want to have that discussion after all. I will address your Southeast Asian vs. African-American IQ argument. Too my knowledge we don't have reliable IQ estimates for the Southeast Asian countries that you mentioned nor for their Asian-American counterparts. The only data I'm aware of comes from Richard Lynn but several scholars have given reasons to consider his data on the IQs of different nations to be suspect (Wicherts et al., 2009). Even if we accept Lynn's data research shows that the Black American IQ average has risen above the average of several of those countries (Dickens and Flynn, 2006). I can't say whether or not all the environmental variables that stunt IQ are objectively worse for these Southeast Asian countries than they are for African-Americans or vice versa but it doesn't matter. What does matter is that environment can significantly stunt IQ and that racial gaps in IQ, based on reliable evidence, are entirely caused by environmental differences (Nisbett, 2005). The argument you seem to be trying to make is that East Asians are innately smarter than Blacks therefore East Asian countries with greater environmental deficits than African-Americans but having higher IQs than African-Americans supports the prediction of East Asian intellectual superiority. Of course your view is hopelessly problematic. The evolutionary basis for your claim has been thoroughly refuted (Graves, 2002). In order to test your hypothesis we would have to administer the exact same IQ tests for Southeast Asians and African-Americans and have them reared in the exact same environment to see if they have the same IQ scores. Your example violates basic principles of experimental quantitative genetics and doesn't support the argument you are trying to make. Now as for your personal attacks, I didn't accuse you of name-calling in the last post just insults, dishonest debate tactics and lying. Accusing me of being unable to read graphs is a lie. Constantly insulting my intelligence is of course an insult. Constantly changing the subject and acting like your opponent brought up these issues is deceitful as is attacking strawmen. As far as me lacking technical knowledge and reasoning ability is concerned if you want to play that game we can talk about your own deficiencies in those areas. For instance what happened to your argument about slavery and athleticism? You abandoned it and changed the subject. I showed that your technical knowledge and reasoning skills were very weak in that discussion which is probably why you abandoned the argument. What happened to your attempt to discredit Graves? Didn't you suggest that Graves got to his position in academia through Affirmative Action and White guilt? When were you planning on defending that position or was that just what I called it, a racist snipe? You have a bad habit of jumping from one subject to another attempting to find a hit after a long series of misses. In fact I recommend that you make a new thread on one of those subjects. I would be particularly interested in you attempting to discredit Graves in your own thread the way I did with Rushton in this thread. I'm actually working on my own thread on a subject that I'm sure you will find interesting. If you accept my challenge I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
If you can not point out specifically what was wrong with Graves' post then there is no reason to take your claim seriously. Graves point was not irrelevant. He is saying that assessments of temperament depend on the observer. He used Darwin as a counter point to show that people can come to different conclusions based on their personal perceptions. Darwin did observe the same differences in temperament as Galton. However while Galton used those differences to show that humans were fundamentally biologically different Darwin made further observations that human groups shared similar behavioral characteristics that point to a common origin and commonality in nature. Graves was about to go further in to the subject directly addressing Rushton's point by talking about gene by environment interactions but he was cut off by the moderator. I'm going to email Graves specifically about this subject to see what more he has to say. List one journal that published a paper by Graves and explain with evidence how it is related to Marxism.
Of course I can. Just because you cannot or pretend not to (especially as I have gone over this before) see the error doesn't mean that anyone who is interested cannot see the error. So why should I waste my time repeating myself to someone whose MO is just to waste people's time by pretending the same material has not been covered? There is no "however" here. The question was about those specific differences and you are addressing a different question. Why?
Your mind seems to be stuck in the past. I don't recall what you said about this quote before I just know that right now you are making an argument without backing up your claim. If you can back up your claim why not do so? Let's see what Graves has to say about it.... I want to see if you can back up your claims. If Graves really gets his papers published in Marxist journals then surely you can back up this claim. Or perhaps you can't. Which is it?
Because the claim is self evident and there is little indication anybody cares, other than you who cares to waste people's time with dishonest pretence.
Here is the full post: If you can not explain why Graves is mathematically illiterate based on this quote then you have no argument.
Perhaps you can explain why an FST of 0.25 implies any fixation, and why an FST below 0.25 implies no fixation. Use some data on the FSTs of various species and subspecies to help you. Perhaps start with the human/chimp FST of 0.18. Also quote Sewall Wright making this argument.
What is obvious is that Marxists cannot be trusted in any way whatsoever to honestly report science. One need only read about Lysenko to see how deluded these people actually are.
What is obvious is that Racists cannot be trusted in any way whatsoever to honestly report science. One need only read about Rushton to see how deluded these people actually are.
I'm laughing how you're claiming my arguments are strawmen and dishonest without actually showing how. I think your inability to understand more complex discussion is more accurate. And how was your defense of the fact you still are maintaining a conclusion without evidence? Looks like you totally skipped over that. You didn't show me malnutrition stunts mental ability more than height. Do you have any reading comprehension? I explainedonly one source quantified height loss but not IQ and the other quantified neither. I'm at a loss how a purported adult doesn't know the basis of forming an argument. I didn't abandon slave genes; I became tired of your inability to grasp what you were admitting that slavery selectively pressures strong individuals over weak relative to non-enslaved people. Hypothesizing this to include people with higher fast twitch muscle fibers - which provide more than just running ability - was too hard for you to consider.
Once again you continue to insult and belittle your opponent with childish and nonsensical arguments. Do you do this because you are unable to construct a valid argument yourself? My sources did not need to quantify the exact extent of the IQ deficit. They noted that significant cognitive deficit was correlated with a small deficit in height. My hypothetical experiment shows how environmental differences can have a greater impact on the IQ of children that survive in to adulthood than it does on height. What part of that do you not understand? I don't need data to back up this point. I have logic. Your slave genes argument is purely theoretical and full of holes. I agree that the conditions of slavery were harsh. I agree that it would take people with a strong constitution to survive the Middle Passage, back breaking labor, beatings, rape and the psychological trauma of being a slave their whole lives. Over generations this may have weeded out the most incompetent of people who couldn't handle the physical and mental stress of being a slave. But it could also have deleterious effects on the population. The mental and physical health of a population could have deteriorated over generations of living in such poor conditions. Moreover what you're talking about is slavery conditions providing a selective pressure for a very specific aspect of athleticism. Why slavery conditions for instance impact the speed of people of African descent and not their strength? Blacks dominate the Olympic sprint not weightlifting so they don't seem to have a genetic advantage in strength. The idea that only the fittest slaves survived to pass on their genes is also not supported by the historical record. While slave masters tried to pass off what they thought were the most physically fit slaves at auctions nothing prevented nonathletic and unhealthy slaves from having children. We also know that because of poverty over generations African-Americans have many health problems including higher rates of obesity, hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Without a sophisticated breeding program that prevented nonathletic slaves from breeding in great numbers and ensured that mostly the healthiest and most athletic slaves had the most offspring there is simply no way that slavery could select for Blacks with the most athletic genes. Like I said more than likely evolutionary factors are the cause of Blacks having some athletic advantages. Graves wrote an entire chapter on this in his book The Race Myth with sources which I recommend people read and which I will need to read over myself. Speaking of Graves what about your attempts to discredit him? I'm not letting you off the hook on that one. You interjected that in to the conversation. Are you abandoning that argument?
That's truly amazing how neither source needs to give numbers to show the extent to which IQ is affected by malnutrition. How do uou know IQ is greatly affected if you don't have numbers? Your first source did not even measure stunted height, so I see you're back to falsifying your data, again. Your 'hypothetical' example doesn't show anything because you still cannot compare your hypothetical extreme to the one I presented. I'm at a loss to the extent you're unable to understand plain language. I'm judging Graves on the basis of his poor logic. I find it funny you're more interested in discussing his career than your numerous errors, inability to read graphs (!), citing Nisbett after he was shown to have cherry-picked data, and your repeated outright fabrications, including the one in this very post. I also haven't insulted or belittled you beyond pointing out you've fabricated claims and lack a basic technical background.
My point was never to show how much malnutrition affects IQ. I simply said that environmental differences can potentially affect IQ more than they affect height. My basis for this claim is that an environmental variable like malnutrition doesn't affect height to the degree that environmental variables affect intelligence. I have shown this to be correct with basic logic. I have to call your reading comprehension in to question for being unable to understand this simple point. You didn't simply judge Graves based on his allegedly poor logic. You suggested that he got to his position in academia through Affirmative Action and White guilt. Since there is no evidence for this you should simply concede that you were making a racist snipe and acknowledge that his academic credentials are not consistent with your suggestion. I would also advise you to stop trying to change the subject when you are cornered. That isn't a good look.
So Egalitarian, you can only make your arguments by ordering others how they may make points or not? Given that Affoirmative action does exist and some very poor candidates have been over promoted because of it then a minority candidate is always going to be suspect no matter how good they may be.
If the left position is true then why not open up proper research into race and genetics and have lots of studies that can prove their position? The reason is obvious. The left knows that the results will be detrimental to their cause.
In my view the existence of Affirmative Action is used by racists in discussions like this to discredit anyone who is a minority who they don't like. I've actually heard Obama referred to as an Affirmative Action President. Never mind the absurdity of the term (Presidents are democratically elected not appointed) Obama graduated from Harvard Law School with high honors. His educational background speaks for itself as does the academic career of Graves. There has already been a lot of research in to the subject of race, intelligence and genetics which does not support the theories of racists.
Take him at his word. If speaks about certain behaviors, there is no reason to assume he has something against people with black skin. If he speaks instead about blacks... it's reasonable to wonder why he's bringing skin color into the conversation.
