Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

I've asked you repeatedly what your educational background is.

It's strange you never answer but are sure to ask others theirs.

Of course I'm not going to reveal more due to you being unhinged.

Do you have a learning disability?

If you have a positive correlation coefficient then your slope is positive.

Following the independent variable means the dependent variable increases when the slope is positive.

That means in a plot of IQ vs. White admixture, because the correlation is positive, IQ rises by increasing white admixture.

I know you understand none of this, but i am explaining this to any readers to show you're both wrong and ignorant.

Only the cognitively challenged or illiterate can be asked a straight forward question a half dozen times and change their response at the last minute.

Again, the Lieberman study showed northern europeans having higher IQ and brain volume than west africans. What study are you referencing showing otherwise?

You ignore straightforward questions then change the parameters of the debate.

In general, Lieberman actually shows lbrain volume differences following the racial IQ hierarchy.

Nice strawman argument. I am not disputing the above. I am saying the brain volume gap is a piece of evidence against your initial claim. Again, these reading comprehension issues crop up non-stop.

Then read the part showing northeast asians having larger brain volume than Europeans than africans.

 

And as I said, both terms are heavily subjective. One man's poverty is another man's riches. Not everyone that claims discrimination is necessarily the victim of unjust discrimination, and not all forms of discrimination are unjust. The very definition you pasted is vague and thus highly subjective, which is my point. The idea that we can definitively measure a subjective thing is ridiculous.

As I said, merely invoking things like Jim Crow is a correlation/causation fallacy. That's not proof of anything.

Poor compared to what? The Chinese are markedly poorer than American blacks, yet have higher average IQs than whites. "Institutional discrimination"? Same argument could be made about Jews, of which Ashkenazim also have higher average IQs and incomes than whites.

What does poor mean? Having less fancy sofas? Missing a cell phone in the house? Again, subjective. Poverty is a comparison game. You can't discern that someone is poor without comparing them to someone else with more material possessions.

I already addressed this somewhere, I don't recall your original source for this and I don't care to dig it up. As I've said, the diminishing environmental impact on heritability of IQ with increasing age has been shown and isn't controversial: The Wilson Effect.

Plomoin & Spinath, 2004:

"The convergence of evidence on the conclusion that individual differences in intelligence are substantially heritable led to a decline in the 1990s of genetic research on intelligence that merely aimed to investigate the heritability of intelligence. Instead, genetic designs were used to go beyond estimating heritability in order to ask questions about environmental influences, developental change and continuity, and multivariate issues. Before discussing these three topics, it should be noted that assortative mating for intelligence is substantial. Correlations between spouses are only about .10 for other personality traits and about .20 for height and weight, but assortative mating for intelligence is about .40 (Plomin, DeFries, et al., 2001). The importance of assortative mating is that it increases genetic variance generation after generation and may thus contribute to the high heritability of intelligence."

Dumber and smarter people tend to gravitate toward each other and have offspring, as if we all haven't noticed that already.

They also stated,

"[A]lthough shared environment is important for intelligence in childhood, its importance declines to negligible levels after adolescence. In other words, shared environmental factors relevant to intelligence would be expected to show associations in childhood but not later in development. Moreover, this finding suggests that, even for intelligence, the salient environmental factors are nonshared after childhood."

And regarding what I referenced previously about how genetics influence our environment in what a previous psych professor of mine called a "person-environment fit" :

"This research suggests that we create our experiences in part for genetic reasons and supports a current shift from thinking about passive models of how the environment affects individuals toward models that recognize the active role we play in selecting, modifying, and creating our own environments (Plomin, 1994). In quantitative genetics, this topic is referred to as active genotype-environment correlation (Plomin,DeFries, et al., 2001)."

It goes both ways. Do people of below-average intelligence create environments of similar quality to those of markedly higher aveage IQs? Obviously not.

You have yet to show how SPECIFICALLY you concluded that "discrimination and poverty" are the cause of the IQ gaps.

I've yet to see that, especially during childhood, in studies that I've gone over that said to have controlled for factors of discrimination and SES. What I've seen is that with increasing age, the gaps open up and stay there - even controlling for such factors.

 

You've said zilch of your relevant background.

 

You volunteered your educational background and repeatedly bring it up in debate to defend your credibility to speak on scientific topics. You are free to provide more information if you want but I'm not going to believe you unless you provide evidence. Getting banned from a science message board for trolling, getting called an idiot by a scholar responding to your critique of his work and post history which is full of logical fallacies troll tactics and overt racism completely destroys your credibility as a serious debater. So unless you provide evidence otherwise I am not convinced that what you are claiming is true.

"Your opponent is an idiot" - Richard Nisbett

I understand what a positive correlation is however the data reported by Nisbett indicates a very low correlation which supports an environmental interpretation of the Black-White IQ gap more than a genetic interpretation.

My argument has been the same. You simply misinterpreted it which is your fault.

What?! The Lieberman study was a rebuttal to the argument that there were racial hierarchies in brain size. How in the world did you conclude that it supported the claim? The title alone should indicate to you that Lieberman supported no such thing.

Your inability to interpret research and misunderstanding arguments is not my fault.

No, he doesn't. He clearly showed in detail that the argument for racial hierarchies in brain size is not scientifically valid.....that was the whole point of the article!

You have stated for years that brain volume differences can explain racial differences in IQ. Don't lie. Your post history will betray you.

Neither paper claimed that. Wicherts analyzed the reported figures of Rushton just to make a point and clearly said that his cranial/brain size measurements are based on outdated techniques. Lieberman says the exact same thing and goes in to detail on the flaws of Rushton's methodology and his misinterpretation of the research on the subject.

You're being ridiculous by trying to trivialize the meaning of words that are in common use and dictionary defined.

If you're disputing whether racial discrimination is a "real thing" then the burden of proof is on you to show that. Jim Crow Laws, Segregation and Blacks having disproportionately lower income levels are facts.

You're just trolling by pretending that words like discrimination and poverty can not be defined. In your mind racism is probably too subjective to define as well. No on in their right mind would take these arguments seriously.

Yeah...is there a moderator in the house? This level of trolling should not be allowed.

This is completely irrelevant to my argument.

I don't need to do that. You don't need to understand the exact nature of the environment to know that there is environmental inequality.

You were provided with studies supporting my point. Go read them.

This is not true.

I don't care to provide any more information for you beyond that and neither you or Rayznack have provided evidence for your educational backgrounds. Rayznack says he is withholding information because I am unhinged. I have made a lot of enemies on the internet by debating racists so I withhold a lot of personal information. You in particular are notorious for posting personal information about your opponents so who knows what sinister purpose you might have once you obtain that information not to mention your post history of being incredibly mentally unbalanced which includes posting bestiality photos, photos of people being murdered and genocidal fantasies. I simply don't trust you enough to share this type of information.

 

Of course, you edited a crucial portion of Wichert's cheating.

The first part of the 'Brain size' section, immediately preceding your quote explains his methodology.

3. Brain size

Rushton (this issue) claims that global differences in IQ and development can be explained in terms of (race) differences in brain size. Rushton (2000) has gone to great lengths to show that race groups differ on average in terms of brain size, with Whites averaging 1347 cm3 and Blacks averaging 1267 cm3.

The mean difference may appear impressive, but it is virtually meaningless without knowledge of the typical spread of brain size within populations, which is around SD = 130 cm3. So the Black-White difference in brain size is approximately 80/130 .6 SD units. Rushton’s figures are based not on contemporary MRI measurements of white and gray matter volume, but rather on outdated external or postmortem cranial measurements."..."​

So, even though we are talking about Average distances between members of respective Races, he subtracts out .6 SD because whites also vary within their resperctive averages.
Huh?

That's like comparing Average SAT scores between races, but subtracting out variance within a race before that comparison.
What!

There's always a premise or methodology error.
Same with Evangelical creationists.
You know it's in there.
These people are dishonest rationalizers/race-deniers.
Their life's work is explaining away the truth.
+

EDIT
Now you can all go back to Ejay's:
"Dear Sci- guy who I cherry-picked because I know you agree with me on .. whatever.
Would you please write me a Note for my message board?
thx"
+

 

@rayznack

Just a heads up, I got a reply from Weisberg.

Weisberg is consulting a colleague for the questions about brain volume differences and IQ but clearly he verified that my interpretation of his research on Gould, Morton and Lewis is correct.

 

duplic

 

You're not interpreting his statement correctly. Wicherts is not "subtracting out" the variance but rather showing that the mean difference between the reported figures of Rushton for brain size differences between Blacks and Whites represent only .6 SD units. So he's showing how much the reported mean difference between Blacks and Whites represents the standard deviation in brain size within populations.

 

You're not able to distinguish that not all types of "discrimination" are bad, let alone damaging to the degree you claim they are, same with poverty.

It's a fact that groups like the Chinese have markedly higher average IQs than blacks and a few points higher than whites, in spite of their being poorer. Such things 1) question the legitimacy of definitions of subjective terms like poverty, and 2) throw into question claimed impact of said subjective term of poverty on group IQ data.

In that, I'd like to see why Chinese poverty isn't a negative factor in IQ whereas black American poverty is.

It seems clear that if poverty were that much an effect on IQ, we'd be seeing more consistent results.

Pointing out you're invoking subjective terms as proven to have caused a group IQ gap isn't trolling. You clearly cannot come to terms with that the two words are subjective and that other groups poorer than American blacks have average IQs higher than whites, which according to you shouldn't be happening.

As I mentioned before, since American blacks have higher average IQs than sub-Saharan blacks who have had less historical contact with whites, it could be seen that racial discrimination has NOT harmed black IQ.

How is that trolling? I was making a valid point relevant to this discussion. You can't glean a concrete set of results from a subjective term.

Totally relevant for the above reason. You totally ignored Plomoin & Spinath.

You need to prove the specific types of environmental inequality you claim are the reason are the reason, in light of that life is a vast myriad of "environmental inequality." I've seen nothing of the sort. Quite the opposite.

I've yet to see any related to that how we know that "poverty+discrimination" caused the IQ gap. I've also not seen any that show that controlling for discrimination/SES closes the gap throughout childhood.

 

I'm wondering why a guy with bad methods and poor conclusions is relevant in pointing out that someone here "is an idiot"?

It seems to me that if Nisbett has all the time to coach you via email, then he's got enough time to answer critiques by Lee and others which he's been dodging for 8 years.

 

If you think that enslaving people for hundreds of years, beating them, raping them, murdering them, telling them they are inferior and then for the next 100 years denying them equal housing, employment, education, voting rights etc. and subjecting them to terrorism, police brutality and racist hatred on a daily basis will not have a social, economic, physical and psychological effect on their population over the course of generations is not "bad" discrimination then you can go ahead and think that. That type of intellectual dishonesty and moral bankruptcy is not worthy of debate. But this is what everyone should expect in a debate with racists. They (you) won't accept any sort of evidence that conflicts with their racist ideology.

PSEUDOSCIENCE shows a total indifference to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments— instead, it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories, faked footprints, blurry photos, and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine modern scientific literature is not cited. Real research is never done. Generally pseudoscientists never present any valid evidence of any kind whatsoever for their claims. One of the most bizarre recent tactics of pseudoscientists is to publish a novel, a work of fiction in which essentially everything is made up by the author— as usual in works of fiction!— but then to turn directly around and treat the completely made-up material as if it were actual, factual and researched. Recent examples of this tactic are The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield (1994), and The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown (2003). This is really having your cake and eating it too, because the authors, when taken to task for gross errors and mis-statements, calmly say, “Can't you read? It's fiction, not non-fiction,” and yet when not taken to task for equally gross errors, sneakily treat them as established facts and build upon them to generate yet more best-selling books.- Rory Coker Phd

By what statistical measure are you claiming that Chinese are poorer than American Blacks? Comparing a demographic group within a country to an entire country is ridiculous. Chinese-Americans are certainly not more disproportionately poor than African-Americans and I've already established that research shows that the Asian-White IQ gap is caused by cultural and not genetic factors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060715/

You should already be familiar with this type of research considering that its conclusions are acknowledged in a book you claim to have read.

No one it saying it is but do you have statistical evidence that the national average IQ reported for China is representative of the general population at all income levels? What is the source for your claim?

There's plenty of research on the negative impact of poverty on populations which I've already posted.


Pointing out you're invoking subjective terms as proven to have caused a group IQ gap isn't trolling. You clearly cannot come to terms with that the two words are subjective and that other groups poorer than American blacks have average IQs higher than whites, which according to you shouldn't be happening.

As I mentioned before, since American blacks have higher average IQs than sub-Saharan blacks who have had less historical contact with whites, it could be seen that racial discrimination has NOT harmed black IQ.

Your argument is an exercise in sophistry. By your line of reasoning anyone could deny anything. Intelligence doesn't mean anything. Culture doesn't mean anything. Crime doesn't mean anything. Success doesn't mean anything. These are all subjective terms. One could use this logic to undermine all of your racist arguments.

This research doesn't challenge more argument that improve in environmental quality significantly reduces IQ gaps.

You're shifting the burden of proof again. Racists are the ones that need to prove there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. I've already proven my argument which is supported by credible sources. You don't need to know the exact nature of the environment to establish that environmental inequality exists. This was explained to Rushton in his debate with Graves.



Watch the Q&A section. This is the definitive rebuttal to the racial hereditarian argument which was also summarized in his book.

None of you have responded to this argument. You haven't even shown that you understand the argument even though it has been explained to you many times.

This graph simplifies the point even more:



Do you get it yet?

You've already been provided with this information you just refuse to expect it.

There are many environmental variables that impact IQ which are not equal between groups. The fact that some of them can't be controlled means that the racial hereditarian theory is not testable experimentally.

Nisbett's research is peer-reviewed and his book got many positive reviews. Nisbett's reputation as a credible scholar is not in question by the academic community unlike Rushton who you and Rayznack have both cited who was twice reprimanded by his school for unethical research practices, dismissed as a quack by experts on topics he spoke on and was the laughing stock of academic debates he participated in. Nisbett is well within his right to dismiss an anonymous person on the internet as an idiot if he doesn't feel that his interpretation of his research should be taken seriously. Your attacks on his credibility shouldn't be taken seriously either.

 

My reason for emailing scholars about their research and posting their replies should be obvious to any objective observers. I am dealing with dishonest debaters who don't know how to read studies and articles. Rather than debate endlessly over whether or not your interpretation of research is accurate, which should be obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension, I can simply settle the dispute by emailing the scholars who wrote the paper.

You could do this too if you actually had credible scholars to contact and the ability to write a post that they would take seriously enough to give you a reply but since you don't you resort to claims that I am "cherry-picking" scholars who agree with me to cope with your inability to respond to an argument. I have displayed the ability to contact anyone on relevant topics. I got an email response from Jason Lewis after his article was published and now I have one from Michael Weisberg who provided a rebuttal to his criticism of Gould. If you doubt his credentials you can look them up for yourself.

I even emailed Rushton once but didn't get a reply (then I tested him months later under another account pretending to be sympathetic to his views and got a response which should tell you something about his objectivity). Obviously if your opposition doesn't respond to you it is a waste of time arguing with them. Your debate opponents can always email scholars who support them but none of you have shown you are able to do this.

This reminds me of my debate with Frank on The Phora. You know even though he was dishonest, manipulative, disrespectful and clearly mentally unstable he did try to debate on my level. He did contact Rushton and got replies which helped me out as I got responses to Graves' research from Rushton that he never gave in published papers. You, Empress and Rayznack could always email scholars like Linda Gottfredson and who ever else you think supports your position to strengthen your arguments but you haven't done this and I think it's because you can't. You don't have the level of scientific literacy necessary to do that.

 

I accidentally missed these two comments so I'm going to address them here.

I don't know of any groups in America that are poorer on average than Blacks but have higher IQs than Whites. Since you are making that claim you need to support it with evidence. As I said before comparing demographic groups within a nation to a separate nation is not a legitimate comparison but even if it were true that one demographic group has a higher IQ than another but greater poverty rates that's not a problem for my argument as poverty is not the only environmental variable. Even though a lot of environmental inequality is caused by poverty you could feasibly have a group with greater poverty with a higher IQ than a group with more wealth due to other environmental variables. For example it could be argued that Group X has a slightly higher poverty rate than Group Y which influences environmental variables such as education, malnutrition and environmental toxicity but Group Y has a serious problem with stereotype threat due to the psychological effects of racism that overrides the disparity in poverty between the groups in favor of Group Y. The key issue here is that there is environmental inequality between groups which means your racial hereditarian argument is not testable experimentally.

You don't have to explain the nature of environmental inequality between groups to prove that it exists. There is no scientific basis to the racial hereditarian argument that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ based on experimental quantitative genetics, population genetic theory and genomic research.

Nonsense. The environment for Black Americans could be unequal to White Americans due to racist discrimination but provide a better nurturing environment for intelligence than developing nations in Africa where there are major problems with malnutrition and other environmental factors that could impact IQ. Of course you want to make the argument that since many African countries don't live in societies where Whites control the government (never mind the impact of the slave trade, wars and colonialism) their standard of living is a reflection on the cognitive ability of the general population. You've made this argument before but if we look at variation in nation wealth around the world we see trends that conflict with a racial hereditarian argument such as the economic success of South Korea vs. North Korea, the disparity in both nation wealth and IQ between Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians, the disparity in nation wealth between Western and Eastern Europe as well the the disparity in nation wealth and IQ between 1st world countries in North America and Europe vs. 3rd World countries in Latin America with majority White populations. If race determines intelligence and intelligence determines the wealth of nations we wouldn't see these patterns.

 

No; you don't know what you're talking about.

How would you be able to make a qualitative distinction of various variables based solely on a correlation coefficient?

Again, do you have a learning disability?

I'm claiming brain volume differences probably partly explain the IQ gap. Nothing in my post you quoted contradicts anything i just said.

I can't fathom you actually being in the normal range of mental ability.

Then show what Lieberman says of northeast asian qnd northern European brain volume differences.

That's ignoring brain volume differences are established regardless what activist academics purportedly claim.

 

So provide the evidence rather than relying on your beliefs as facts.

You could start by showing how much the IQ has shrunk in 100 years commensurate to lower racism and discrimination.

Oh, wait, the IQ gap hasn't appreciably shrunk and the last adult IQ testing has shown this.

 

Your opponent is an idiot. - Richard Nisbett



I don't care what some emotionally disturbed racist troll thinks of me.

I have already provided the article by Leonard Lieberman which argues that there are no racial hierarchies in brain size and shows that scholarly conclusions on racial hierarchies have changed over time as well as posted the chart showing this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14992214

So if YOU are claiming that Leonard Lieberman says that there are brain volume differences between races that impact intelligence go read the article yourself and prove it.

By who? What's your source? Activist academics? He opposed Scientific Racism so that somehow puts his objectivity as a scholar in question?

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

Leonard Lieberman (October 25, 1925 – February 6, 2007) was an American anthropology professor at the Central Michigan University for forty years.[1]

Early Life and Education

Lieberman was educated at the University of California, Berkeley (B.A. - 1956; M.A. - 1959) and at Michigan State University (PhD., 1970). He published The Debate over Race Phylon 39:127–41); with Alice Littlefield and Larry T. Reynolds, Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology (current anthropology 23:641–55): and, with Larry T. Reynolds, Race: The Deconstruction of a Scientific Concept, in Race and Other Misadventures: Essays in Honor of Ashley Montagu in His Ninetieth Year.[N 1]

Career

Lieberman's research focused on human races, the debate over creationism and evolution and intelligent design.[2] Influential contributor to the theory of anthropology teaching when he saw himself as a follower of Montagu’s pioneering ideas about race. He presented 60 papers at scholarly conferences, the last one at the 105th American Anthropological Association (AAA).[3]

Lieberman was a prominent critic of the racial theories of J. Philippe Rushton. One such example is a journal article where Lieberman traced the origins of Rushton's theories showing that Rushton used secondary sources to obtain the size of skulls upon which he based his research about the cranial volume differences of racial groups.[4]

I've been posting evidence for my claims throughout this thread. You and the other racists have not. Empress' claim is just as speculative. My point is that we can't assume the validity of her argument and we don't need to know the exact nature of IQ inequality to show that it exists. As for IQ gaps shrinking I've already shown evidence that not only has the Black-White IQ gap in America been significantly reduced but the reported average for African IQ being at or below 70 is inaccurate.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01802.x

If you disagree with this research provide counter sources. You keep denying the validity of evidence and misinterpreting sources while avoiding posting sources supporting your claims. That's why you got banned on Sciforum.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-and-iq-differences.156169/page-3#post-3377197

Provide evidence for your claims and counter sources if you want to be taken seriously in this debate.

 

When did I say I was going to do this? This is what I am talking about regarding your trolling. If you want a reply to Weisberg's paper by Lewis you could contact him yourself. I already emailed Lewis shortly after his paper was published and shared that response. Weisberg's paper was published 3 years ago. There's also another paper by Johnathan Kaplan on Lewis' study that I have. Where are your quotes from Lieberman's study supporting your argument that he acknowledges brain volume differences that impact intelligence between races? He made no such claim.

In fact there's actually a study from Lieberman's paper that I recently obtained which says that any reported birth weight and brain volume differences between Black and White Americans were eliminated when controlling for environmental variables. The study has a nice chart comparing Black American, White American and African immigrant subjects showing that the control of environmental variables eliminates gaps between them. Remember that the development of the brain is environmentally sensitive so even if there were brain volume differences between groups we can not assume that genetic differences are the cause.

 

I find it amusing how silent you are on the technical aspects of this discussion.

How are you able to claim low positive correlation means the data favors environmental over genetic variables?

Why not ask Nisbett this question?

I asked you a specific question what Lieberman showed for differences in brain volume between Northeast Asians, Northern Europeans and West Africans.

You have repeatedly ignored my actual question and instead responded to a question I never asked.

You seem to be a wholly dishonest individual appearing to suffer from a wide range of personal problems.

No; because I'm not citing Lieberman, didn't ask that question, don't consider him a credible researcher, and he never conducted novel research on brain volume differences.

The negro has smaller brain volume than Europeans than Northeast Asians per Lieberman's own literature, but Lieberman spins this to apparently claim no racial cranial differences.

Every study measuring brain/head volume differences between Europeans and Negros has measured differences in size.

Find an actual primary study finding Negros having equal brain/head volume with Europeans.

Tobias, Lieberman and Gould are not primary sources since they never conducted original work. They adjusted brain volume differences from previous work by fabricating arguments.

The most recent study used MRI technology and adjusted for age, sex, and educational level and found black and white brain volume differences.

Find the evidence black IQ is partly due to racism.

Be sure to account for why the adult IQ gap has not actually changed since 1917.

You're inherently dishonest or suffer from sever learning impairment(s). Your own Flynn study shows the *adult* IQ gap hasn't significantly diminished since 1917. I've pointed this out to you at least a half dozen times. The WAIS IV results show no decrease in the gap and is the Flynn study you cite. You both dishonestly ignore this study, and have again chosen to have misrepresent what I actually write.

Do you have a learning disability?

 

If you want Lewis' input then contact him yourself. You're clearly just being manipulative because you've run out of arguments. I'm not falling for it. Go contact him yourself and prove that you are capable of speaking to actual scholars as I have.

You're using the same logical fallacy that impressive is fond of.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires justification.

Person 1 demands that person 2 justify the opposite of Y.

Person 2 refuses or is unable to comply.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.

Nick: How do you figure?

Jack: Can you prove that I don't?

Nick: No.

Jack: Then I do.


I have already posted a link to the full article for everyone to read and a chart from the Lieberman study showing changes in racial hierarchy reported by different scholars. The study is a rebuttal to the very claim you are making. So if you are making the claim that Lieberman reports a racial hierarchy in brain size support it with direct quotes. Stop trolling by making excuses not to back up your claims. Also I have been advised by a moderator that calling or suggesting that posters are liars is an insult and violation of the rules so you are going to be reported for this.

By the way I know you hate Lieberman for refuting the work of your hero Rushton but calling someone despicable slime would be more appropriate for someone who has done something unethical such as when Rushton harassed students and strangers in a shopping mall asking them invasive sexual questions such as how big their penises were, how many sexual partners they've had, what type of sexual fantasies do they have and how far can they ejaculate. Rushton also cited pornography as a source of information for his research. If anyone's sources are despicable slime it is yours.

 

Yet you blindly, repeatedly invoked poverty to explain the average IQ of Africa - without evidence.

Since you're claiming that in part poverty causes low IQs, you need to back up that claim with evidence. You've made this claim repeatedly without evidence, as you are here. Poverty and malnutrition - especially the prolonged, severe type that tends to impact cognitive ability - are two different things.

Zero source materials here either. Probably a gleaned summary from something in your emails.

So you keep saying but aren't showing. I've repeatedly stated you need to illustrate where it's been narrowed down to where factors other than "discrimination and poverty" have been ruled out as causative factors in group IQ gaps. Nada as of yet.

So you're saying that poverty isn't as big of an issue, then?

I was illustrating that people in a more discriminatory environment - as least racially whereas in Africa its based on religion and tribe - has not shown the impact on IQ that would one expect. Or perhaps the US isn't nearly as discriminatory as Africa is?

And this comes back to how you've not illustrated that none of this has to do with low average IQ populations producing sub-standard environments and less financial affluence. You're running on the false assumption that it's all a one-way street.

 

Flynn & Dickens' work has similar issues I've noted in other of your sources: They fail to take into account the Wilson Effect.

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.

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.


Anyone that cares to posit that large IQ differences between groups is the result of environment needs to explain why that is true in light of the Wilson Effect that shows increasing heritability of IQ/decreasing effects from environment from childhood onward.

 

You claimed contacting academics is doing scientific work. You're actually engaging in selection/confirmation bias by asking and posting academics who fit your worldview at the expense of ones that don't.

There's nothing about your worldview that is scientific or rational.

I'm asking you a specific question you repeatedly distort.

What does Lieberman show re: negro, European and northeast Asian brain volume differences? Does his data (or perhaps Tobias'?) not show northeast Asians having larger brain volume than Europeans than negros?

Actually, calling someone a racist is an insult and violation of rules; asking if you are a perpetual liar after repeatedly misconstruing my questions to fit scripted responses is not directly calling or accusing you of lying or being a liar. I am asking if chronically misconstruing my comments is due to dishonesty on your part, or due to other reasons such as any learning disability or reading comprehension problem.

 

I emailed Weisberg to settle a dispute about his work that you brought up. He confirmed I was correct. I emailed Lewis for clarification regarding aspects of his work as well so you have no basis for claiming I am selecting scholars that only agree with me. If you want to contact Lewis you can do that yourself. You are playing games because you have run out of arguments.

No, you stated that Lieberman's paper shows that there are brain volume differences between Blacks, Whites and Asians. You failed to substantiate that claim and then tried to shift the burden of proof to say that I need to show that he didn't say it! Just like the example of the guy claiming there is a unicorn in his anus and asking someone to prove it's not there otherwise it is the burden of proof is on you if you're making the claim to show that Lieberman said what you claimed he did.

But now you are twisting it in to a question. Do Lieberman or Tobias present data that show that there are brain volume differences between races? The answer is no. They cite data sets from different sources and show the flaws in the methodology that lead to invalid conclusions. That's the point of both papers. If you're claiming that racial differences in brain volume exist (which you did claim) then the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence backing up your claim. Lieberman didn't make that claim and his research doesn't support that claim. Claiming otherwise is not factual.

Implying that someone is a liar according to a moderator is against the rules. We can ask a moderator if calling someone a racist is against the rules. To me it is just a label. If you engage in forced sexual intercourse and someone calls you a rapist is that an insult? If you kill someone and you are charged with murder and the public condemns you as a murderer once you are convicted is that an insult? Calling someone a racist who consistently engages in racist behavior and promotes racism (hatred or intolerance of another race) is an accurate description which you would think would be acceptable on a political board as discussing various forms of bigotry and labeling opposition by what they stand for is very common and relevant to discussion. But we can let the moderators decide whether or not it is ok to call someone a racist.

As far as dishonesty, learning disabilities and reading comprehension are concerned when you continue to make false statements about research even when relevant comments have been highlighted for you, fail to back up your claims with sources when you have been told that this is proper discourse in a debate (which is the reason why you were banned on Sciforum as they don't tolerate that type of trolling) and fail to understand the argument of sources when they have been explained over and over including quotes of abstracts and links to full studies you have demonstrated that you are not honest, unable to learn and have trouble understanding what you have read. You fit the description of everything you are trying to ascribe to me.

"Your opponent is an idiot" - Richard Nisbett

 

A proponent of the oxymoron "scientific racism" is by definition a racist. In that context its not an insult its a valid descriptor so a proponent whinging about being called racist is declaring he is an insult to himself.

This "scientific racism" utilized the exact same tactics as holocaust deniers. Same psuedoscience, same distortion of actual scientific studies, same kind of fallacies, same disgustingly slimey insincerity.

 

What is called "scientific racism" has much more to do with the ideology of the accuser rather than the motivations and conclusions of certain scholars. If you term it twisting science to further a racial agenda, then the "equality" crowd are engaging in scientific racism on a daily basis. In modern discourse, political statements are often confused for scientific ones. Isn't that the essence of what scientific racism is supposed to be?

If those who claim there was a systemic program of Jew-gassing had much to offer outside of bogus witness claims, confessions under torture, and conjecture, I'm quite certain there would be far fewer "holocaust deniers" in the world.