Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Egalitarianjay02, Oct 2, 2017.

  1. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Scientific racism (sometimes race biology or racial biology)[1] is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority;[2][3][4] alternatively, it is the practice of classifying[5] individuals of different phenotypes or genotype into discrete races. Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.[3][4]

    - Wikipedia

    A large portion of the discussion in the race-relations section of PoliticalForum is dedicated to the promotion of Scientific Racism (known as race-realism by proponents) by racist members of the board. I want to address the credibility of this type of research and whether it is really a field of interest that respected scientists pay attention to. I have discussed this subject for several years and have come to the realization that this is not a scientific topic that is taken seriously by mainstream academia. Racism is an important social issue which is why some scientists pay attention to it, simply to provide rebuttals to the research of racist ideologues however the idea there are innate differences in mental characteristics between races has been discredited for decades and is regarded as pseudoscience.

    I have been told this in private by several respected scientists who are interested in refuting Scientific Racism or who work in fields related to the topic. The truth is that Scientific Racism had a following in the 19th century at a time when racism was very common but as science became more advanced and racism more socially unacceptable racist theories were reviewed and refuted. Scientific Racism is viewed as a fringe and discredited theory for years that is only being kept alive by people with connections to racist political groups and organizations that finance this research such as The Pioneer Fund.

    After reading several books on the topic, speaking to different scholars via email, reading several studies, articles, webpages and videos it has become clear to me that virtually every scholar who has published research supporting Scientific Racism has been exposed as a racist with an ideological agenda. They are either directly involved with the Pioneer Fund as a member or grantee, have been labeled by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an academic racist, have some prior or current involvement with hate groups who have spoken at conferences held by racists such as White Nationalists. I haven't seen a single academic debate on the internet that was done in the past 10 years where a proponent of Scientific Racism debated an opponent in an academic setting. If anyone can find one please share because as far as I know none exist.

    The reason why this is important is to raise awareness about the fact there are is no current debate on science over this topic. This matter was settled decades ago. People have come to me in private here and other message boards telling me that they want to pursue professional careers trying to debunk Scientific Racism and have been negatively psychologically affected by it. I have seen internet posters who were Egalitarians become racists or sympathizers and admit publicly and privately that they've become convinced of racist ideas, believe that racial stereotypes were true or become internet vigilantes dedicated to debunking Scientific Racism which scholars who know better recognize is a complete waste of time. Racists have continually ducked challenges to debate on science message boards on platforms where they will be subjected to a higher level of debate by scientifically literate posters which exposes the fact that they are not really serious about science. They are just interested in promoting racism.

    If anyone disagrees with this position feel free to show evidence that Scientific Racism has any legitimacy as a serious scientific topic today. I stand by the position that only confirmed racists, charlatans and quacks believe in this garbage.
     
  2. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I think it's time we include in the definition of scientific racism people that peddle the equality myth and blame IQ inequality on white racism when there is no evidence to show this outside of correlation/causation fallacy.

    Furthermore, we should be careful of what we term as scientific racism, because all too often people are trying to deny science by using the label to apply uncomfortable facts discovered in the course of research.
     
  3. DarkSkies

    DarkSkies Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    3,259
    Likes Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm not a scientist myself and even I can see that most of the "racial realists'" arguments are in clear violation of the very basic scientific method.

    The inability to define each race, the inability to explain inconsistencies in their beliefs, the inability to discern hypothesis from conclusion, the inability to recognize too small of sample sizes to draw conclusions among other more troubling things are what I see as why they can't be taken seriously as science debaters.

    Also, they really couldn't care less about science. They just call it that to legitimize all the horsecrap. Judges have already declared that race isn't biological and the definition of races has changed along with society. Moreover, the definition of race is not consistent throughout the world so no they'll never be able to have a legitimate scientific debate on the matter without exposing themselves as true blue supremacists.
     
    Jabrosky and Egalitarianjay02 like this.
  4. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What sources can you provide from scholars who have shown that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ who have presented their findings in an academic setting and not been refuted by qualified scientists? Can you name any scholar in the past 10 years who has done this with links and video to them presenting their research? If not that speaks volumes about how credible this research actually is. Now on the flip side I can easily provide a counter source by a credible scholar refuting scientific racism by presenting the same information I am requesting of you.

    Academic Credentials: http://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/faculty/joseph-l-graves-jr-ph-d/

    Link: https://mega.nz/#!XYM2nC6R!AEZlCSvxf6v4DXvHNHx-CD-v4EdJAi8kJhRybucyfTo



    Now to your specific points Dr. Graves anticipated and addressed them years ago in his book.

    Claiming that respected scholars like Graves are the real racists for rejecting the claim that racist discrimination has no impact on the the nurturing environment of demographic groups which explains differences in average IQ score is absurd and saying that they deny science because of uncomfortable facts has no basis in reality. Graves and other respected scholars have used science to refute these claims point by point. You are free to try to prove me wrong on this but no one I have debated has seriously challenged this research.
     
  5. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    183
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Scientific Racism? Psuedoscience isn't science. Scientific facts are facts irregardless of wether you want to reject it because 'seems racist' or not.
     
    Empress, RedDirtWalker and Taxonomy26 like this.
  6. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can see in the post above yours that I have provided sources outlining the pseudoscientific nature of research that promotes theories central to the claims of proponents of Scientific Racism. What scientific facts do you believe have not been addressed by critics of Scientific Racism? Provide a source or sources supporting your position.
     
  7. AltLightPride

    AltLightPride Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    166
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    So OP, you acknowledge that different races have different average IQ's, but you think that genetics has nothing to do with it?

    Do you think races exist or not?

    I definitely agree with you that these "race realists" are pseudoscientific quacks. But the race deniers aren't much better...
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  8. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you look at the source I provided you will see that the author directly addresses the concept of race and its applicability to humans. Basically while there is human biological variation socially defined racial categories are not consistent with biologically defined concepts of race. This is confusing to a lot of people because they think that when scientists reject the notion that there are biological races in the human species they are saying that there are no genetic differences between human populations at all.

    They're not saying that. They are simply saying that the genetic variation that does exist does not does not structure in to biologically meaningful groups that can be called races. This research is better understood when reviewing the history of the concept of race, how races have traditionally been classified and how modern genetic research has deconstructed and falsified the idea that modern humans have biological races. If you disagree with this you should read the article and watch the video first then tell me where you disagree.

    I have read many papers and a few books on this subject. I recommend this article as well:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737365/
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  9. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    183
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You are the one using terms recently invented for political reasons. The term Scientific Racism makes no sense. If claims made by these racists are false, their claims are not Science so such a term is contradictory. Its like saying Freezing Racism for ice that is used to torture black people. Freezing and racism are not compatible terms and science, which is a process for determining facts, is not compatible with racism.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  10. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The term scientific racism was coined by the scientific community and not for political reasons.

    The basic idea is that science can validate racism. You can call it racist pseudoscience or whatever you want. That is just a label. The key issue is that research that supports ideas of racial inferiority is no longer viewed as legitimate science and supporters of this research have been denounced as racist ideologues.

    What scientific facts are you claiming that I am rejecting because they seem racist? I have presented research from credible scientists who have refuted the core arguments of advocates of Scientific Racism. Again I don't really care about the label. You're engaging in wordplay. Your analogy doesn't even make sense. If you are torturing people by freezing them because of their racial background then freezing is your method and racism is your motive. The label they give this research is really not important. What matters is whether the research being presented is valid science.

    So again, what scientific facts relevant to the type of research I am talking about can you list and provide sources showing that this is legitimate science?
     
  11. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't see any way to eliminate all other variables. That's the only way anyone can conclude that only one variable is the reason for any measured difference of intelligence.
     
  12. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,089
    Likes Received:
    183
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I disagree with your view of what science is butI will play along anyways.

    Do you disagree with the fact that individuals of African heritage score lower than those of European heritage and those of European heritage score lower than those of Asian heritage on IQ tests?

    If not then are you arguing the lack of evidence in relation to DNA and IQ would disqualify it as a valid theory that there is a link and if so what disqualifies it as a valid hypothesis? Is there a better theory or hypothesis and what evidence and testing or observations makeit a better theory as to why there is such a difference in IQ.
    Finally, is IQ a valid overall measure of intelligence and what evidence is there that suggests that it is or is not a good measue?
     
    Taxonomy26 likes this.
  13. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Argument from Ignorance Fallacy. I can help.

    Race differences in intelligence: how research changed my mind to overcome the “all races are equal” dogma.
    http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...erences-in-intelligence-how-i-changed-my-mind

    I grew up indoctrinated by political correctness. Like a large part of citizens in Western countries I was brainwashed: Races do not exist, all are equal. Saying anything different, saying that there are racial differences, is racism, a crime.

    Read this, everything you need to know about scientific research about racial differences: RACE, EVOLUTION, and BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective, by J.P. Rushton

    In school I heard disparaging remarks about Artur Jensen and other “unscientific” “dishonest” “cheating” scientists doing faulty research about race differences.

    The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray actually looked fairly convincing to me, but if even President Bill Clinton denounced it, there must be something wrong about it.

    There always was some complex theory to explain away the IQ differences:
    • different culture
    • parental expectation
    • mother’s malnourishment
    • IQ measurements are racially and culturally biased
    My opinion changed when I read about Trans-Racial Adoption studies. That was the last drop that really disproved all these desperate attempts to explain away racial differences in intelligence.

    “The best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed-Race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.”

    Chart 9 summarizes the results for Oriental children adopted into White middle-class homes.

    Korean and Vietnamese babies from poor backgrounds, many of whom were Malnourished, were adopted by White American and Belgian families. When they grew up, they excelled in school. The IQs of the adopted Oriental children were 10 or more points higher than the national average for the country they grew up in. Trans-racial adoption does not increase or decrease IQ. The three-way pattern of race differences in IQ remains.”


    In plain English: adopted Asian babies grew up to be very bright, adopted black babies grew up to have low intelligence.
    [......]
    That did it for me. It destroyed my ingrained indoctrinated beliefs that all races must be equal. It opened up my mind to the possibility that there could be racial differences.

    Before we go on, may I stress a few more points
    • I have no axe to grind against blacks. I am not interested in proving that blacks are stupid or inferior. I am not a white supremacist
    • I have an axe to grind against dogmatism, blindness, stupidity. I have an axe to grind against the catholic church for repressing Galileo’s truth about the moving and revolving earth. And I have an axe to grind about political correctness repressing the truth, repressing research.
    • This site is about human stupidity versus truth and consciousness
    • [....]
    • +
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  14. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    836
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Scientific racism" is/Was a term that could best be applied to some self-interested/tribalistic scientists from perhaps 1600-1945.

    At present however, the term is mostly used as Dishonest bludgeon against those studying, or even acknowledging, a factually settled issue. (though denied by the PC)
    There is Race among humans.

    Race is a valid tool is used by many sciences/scientists, including perhaps the world's Foremost Expert on Evolution, Genetics, and author of the Standard text "Speciation".
    His article below a good explanation at How/Why the term is now Abused by current PC Race-Denial Hustlers.

    Full Credentials+Article in my post:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...on-race-and-iq.479911/page-37#post-1066758837
    The article within's link
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

    "One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology—or human biology in general—is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad History of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s Flawed).

    But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become taboo.
    And this despite the palpable morphological differences between human groups—differences that must be based on genetic differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.

    [......]



    And please Note (above and below), but AVOID, EgalitarianJay's Obsessive MEGA-SPAMMING of self-interested Black College (NC A&T) 'House Scientist', Joseph Graves.
    Ejay can't discuss the issue logically, only attempt to
    BURY/Bludgeon you under HUUUUUGE scriptural citations of the Afro-Joe.
    (most of whose citations on the internet ARE by Ejay!
    Never seen such a single-handed effort on anyone's behalf)
    And he will use the same link/s on every page, in every string.

    His posts are just excuses to respond with BORG-like 'answers'/link dumps/Quote-boxes/Boobtubes, trying to both bury opponents, and make his heRO, more heavily 'cited'. A self-fulfilling 'authority.'

    Immediately Below, 6 scroll pages on my 17" gamer!
    Excessive, and NOT even meant to be responded to/part of a discussion: just a bury-em.
    +
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  15. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are correct. The problem with the argument of proponents of Scientific Racism is that their theory is not testable experimentally and based on fallacious reasoning. You have to assume first of all that race is a legitimate biological construct and secondly that you can control for all environmental variables in order to show that genetic differences between races is the cause of differences in intelligence. This is a basic principle of experimental quantitative genetics. In order to show genetic causality for differences in a phenotypic trait exhibited by different genotypes those genotypes have to be reared in the same environment.

    Richard Lewontin outlined this argument well in an illustration using genetically identical plants whose seeds were planted in soil with different nutritional quality.

    [​IMG]

    These arguments are commonly taught in differential psychology.

    Example (Start 47:00)




    Here are some examples of opponents of Scientific Racism using the same arguments:

    Unless it can be shown that race is a biologically meaningful category and that research that compares IQ scores between groups have controlled for all variables aside from race then the research claiming to have shown a genetic cause for racial difference in IQ is literally worthless.


    I don't know if we disagree on what science is but feel free to express your view on what you think it is. What I have maintained is that research used to validate the idea of genetically determined racial differences in mental characteristics is based on a pseudoscientific premise. The research above outlines the problems with this theory. Not only has it been denounced as pseudoscience by credible scientists in relevant disciplines, including organizations representing mainstream scientific consensus on the issue (ex. The American Anthropological Association, The American Psychological Association, The Genetics Society of America etc.) but experts on identifying pseudoscience recognize it as well.


    Research promoting theories of genetically determined racial differences in mental characteristics do not follow the scientific method and qualify as pseudoscience.

    Science

    systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Pseudoscience

    A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. For example, astronomy is a science, but astrology is generally viewed as a pseudoscience.

    [​IMG]

    Every single one of your questions is directly addressed in the research I presented so if you want thorough answers you should look at my sources. But for a more simplified summary that answers your questions I will say this....

    Based on all of the research I have done including reading papers, books, watching lectures and academic debates and speaking to scholars by email I have come to the conclusion that there is no scientific basis for claiming that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence or mental characteristics in general. There are many problems with this type of research including scholarly bias, testing bias, gathering data, controlling for variables and testing hypotheses.

    So I will say that no, I do not take statistical averages for IQ test scores between demographic groups and nations at face value. The quality of the data, who is being tested, the sample size and the reliability of the tests themselves are all problematic. The tests themselves are often culturally biased and in some cases systematically biased. The tests do not accurately measure intelligence nor can intelligence be definitively measured and ranked (I don't believe the concept of general intelligence or g is a valid scientific concept but rather than what we call intelligence or mental functioning is multifaceted). Despite the problems with testing the reported average differences in IQ can be explained by differences in the environment.

    I do not claim that mental testing itself is worthless or that IQ tests can tell us nothing. Their original purpose when Alfred Binet designed them was to identify children with learning disabilities in order to help them receive special education in school.They were not meant to rank human beings or groups of people based on their worth and innate intellectual ability. Based on what I've read intelligence is not fixed by our genes either. IQ can be boosted by improving the environment of the people taking the IQ test. I feel that if anything that is what we should be focusing on, making sure everyone gets a good education in order to maximize their genetic potential rather than speculating on what that potential is. Even if theories of racial differences in intelligence were correct that would not justify racism. At best we should be seeking a cure for mental deficits and accommodate those who need help which we are already doing for the mentally ill.

    I believe that answers all of your questions. I recommend reading my sources and providing feedback.
     
    Thought Criminal likes this.
  16. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I actually debated the owner of the Human-Stupidity blog. In the blog entry you just posted it says that Rushton's book is "all you need to know" on the subject of race and intelligence. The owner of the blog agreed to host the video of Graves debating Rushton which I still have on my channel where he provided a detailed rebuttal to Rushton's evolutionary arguments and directly addressed the problems with transracial adoption studies.

    Here is the full video:



    The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study is discussed around the 1:33:55 mark of the video.

    Basically Graves argues, citing the research of Sandra Scarr who is one of the authors of the study, that adoption studies can no reliably control for the environment or culture in the ways that Rushton suggested because there are variables that affect IQ score such as psychological factors related to racism.

    Richard Nisbett also provided several problems with the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study itself in his book which shows that it was methodologically flawed and can not test the genetic or environmental hypotheses for the cause of racial differences in IQ:

    1. Selective Placement - Adoption agencies may have engaged in selective placement which could have put Black adoptees in families of lower social class.

    2. Unknown IQ of Natural Parents
    - Since the natural parents of the adopted children was not known the IQs of the White children could have been above the average of the White American IQ mean granting them higher genotypic IQ or the Black children could have been below the Black American IQ mean resulting in them having lower genotypic IQ.

    3. Late Adoption Age - Black children were adopted at a substantially later age which has a negative effect on IQ.

    4. Foster Homes - The Black children had longer placement in foster homes than the White children which also has a negative effect on IQ.

    5. Preadoptive Placement
    - The preadoptive placement of the Black children was worse than the White children which can also negatively impact IQ.

    6. Psychological disturbance from identity issues - According to Sandra Scarr the Black children in the study had an unusual degree of psychological disturbance as a result of being raised by White families. Some of the kids made comments about looking in the mirror and seeing a Black face while knowing deep down that they were really White. Others didn't understand why they weren't placed with a Black family and felt that they didn't belong.

    I brought this research up to Taxonomy26 before and he had no rebuttal.

    Since I am the topic starter I will request that Taxonomy26 fulfill my challenge in the OP to provide a scholar or scholars who have defended the claim of genetically determined racial differences in mental characteristics and defended that research in an academic debate. Provide the readers with a source and video supporting your position. If you don't do this in your next post I am going to report you for thread hijacking. Telling posters to ignore the thread starter in their own thread is unacceptable. Also blog entries won't do. Provide some actual scientific research supporting your position as I did and stop complaining about me citing sources you don't like which is a troll tactic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  17. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,114
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I clearly directly addressed transracial adoption studies in my last post which you ignored. Lying doesn't change facts. A blog entry from Coyne does not address the OP. Coyne is defending the concept of race however my sources directly address this type of research. Graves in particular has directly addressed the argument that scholars like him have an Egalitarian bias for denying the existence of human races.

    You complain about my sources however I am providing information that directly answers questions. You simply are unable to address the sources and then you flee from the debate claiming you are giving me the last word when you are just running. I directly addressed Linda Gottfredson in your thread in this post. My position on her is very clear. She is a Pioneer Fund grantee who has been denounced by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an academic racist. I have never seen her present her research in an academic setting. Find just one video of her doing so. Just one lecture. Just one debate with a scientist opposing her views. I have provided both for Graves as well as studies, book quotes and email conversations. I have many, many other sources as well which you already know. I've already reported you for trolling but you can redeem yourself by defending the research of Gottfredson.

    Lies, lies and more lies.

    My previous sources directly address race and IQ.

    I have asked you to provide a source from Gottfredson representing her arguments and a presentation in an academic setting where she presents her research or debates an academic opponent for her position. You didn't do this.

    The email conversation with Graves that I quoted is a direct response to the argument Coyne made in your blog entry and the scientific research supporting his position is contained in the sources I provided including a download link to the full article and the abstract.

    I have directly addressed your claims and arguments and you are flat out lying to deny reality. That is why you've been reported. This level of trolling should not be tolerated.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  18. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're deflecting here. My point was that the racism in science goes both ways with people on both sides motivated by racist views. You're trying to ignore that and re-hash Graves fanboyism and undying Rushton obsession.

    Since you continue to post that we're equal and IQ differences are caused by "discrimination, etc," that's an argument YOU need to present. Showing high genetic heritability of adult IQ is something you can't even deny. Your argument has been centered around falsely presenting the idea that science has "proven" that demographic IQ gaps are caused entirely by subjective terms such as "discrimination and poverty."

    The basis of your argument is that white people are to blame for low black average IQ, and for that alone you have no recourse but to rely on correlation-equals-causation fallacy and conflate any environmental influence in IQ as "proof racism did it."

    Since there is no scientific basis for such a claim, then by definition it's a racist viewpoint because it assigns collective racial blame to a demographic, especially since no other avenues have been considered.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
  19. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He tries to "prove" group IQ equality by taking liberties with environmental influences on IQ without showing how those influences - basically revolving around discrimination and poverty - have been proven to be the one and only cause of the IQ gap.

    So basically, he continues to try an end-around approach to evade that group IQ inequality remains and there are no replicated, large-scale studies to show otherwise.

    To that end, his core argumentation is posting a lot of snippets of books and emails from Joseph Graves coupled with a reliance on the grandiose but debunked methods of Richard Nisbett.
     
  20. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    1,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know, my uninformed inclination is to share your position on this thread's topic, but about half of us, myself included, would believe a denouncement from SPLC adds to her credibility. In fact, I would classify SPLC as a leftist hate group.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2017
    Taxonomy26, AltLightPride and Empress like this.

Share This Page