Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

@Empress


I see nothing in the rules about not being able to discuss internet activity of posters outside of the message board. There's a rule against posting confidential information about posters but not about discussing what someone said or did on other websites. I haven't released any information about you that is not public. My reference to Rayznack's trolling and banning on Sciforum is public. By this logic you can not talk about anything I have done on the internet including our exchanges on other message boards or Youtube. I have asked a moderator about the rules on this so I will let them sort it out and comply with their rules.

Meanwhile back to the debate....

Are you denying that Whites enslaved Blacks in America for hundreds of years then after slavery passed segregation and Jim Crow Laws denying them equal housing, employment, education and voting rights in addition to subjecting them to domestic terrorism (KKK, lynching, burning churches, destroying towns etc.), police brutality and daily racism? Are you claiming that this had no impact on Black people on a social, economic, physical and psychological level?

If you are then you are denying history and then have the audacity to accuse me of promoting pseudoscience and racist scapegoating. The history of race-relations in America and specifically racist oppression of Whites against Blacks is a historical fact. Denying it or trivializing the significance of its environmental impact is intellectually dishonest. No serious scholar denies that environmental differences impact intelligence and this has actually been proven in laboratory experiments with rats (Tryon, 1940).

So in light of historical and scientific facts that show conclusively that racist discrimination exists, was legal and enforced for generations and the fact that differences in environment impact intelligence (as well as behavior and health) my position is based on well-established facts not scapegoating. And no Empress, I am not pretending this is Alabama in 1820 nor do I have to define poverty and discrimination to prove that there is an environmental difference in the standard of living and conditions of White and Black people in America.

A millionaire living in a mansion with clean water, healthy food and money to take care of all of their daily expenses who has received a first rate education is living under different environmental conditions than someone who is homeless living on the street with no formal education, clean water to drink or healthy food to eat on a daily basis. The difference in these conditions is going to have an impact on them in many ways including their health and the nurturing of their intelligence. We know this as an objective fact based on laboratory experiments on mammals whose brains are influenced by the same mechanisms as humans but there has also been plenty of research done on humans and the impact that environment has on intelligence.

If we could do an experiment on humans (we don't do this for ethical reasons obviously) where one could take a pair of identical twins and raise one in the best environment possible (good parents, good nutrition, good schools, good education, good neighborhood to live in etc.) and raise the other in the worst environment possible (no parents, poor nutrition, no school, no education, no neighborhood or social interaction with humans) and then we give them an IQ test they would not have the same score. The first twin would likely reach their full genetic potential and their score would reflect that. The other raised in the bad environment wouldn't be able to take the test. They wouldn't be able to speak a human language or read and their behavior would be feral due to social isolation plus their brain wouldn't be developed to the point where they possessed the cognitive skills do display intelligence on any level comparable to their twin. But they are genetically identical. The genes are the same. The outcome is different. Environment is 100% the cause of differences in intelligence.

Likewise with Black Americans you have a population that has been subjected to injustice resulting in environmental inequality in all of the areas Graves outlined. Over the course of generations of living under environmental inequality we would expect Blacks and Whites to differ on tests of measured intelligence and there is no scientific reason to assume this has anything to do with genetic differences between races. So the burden of proof is on anyone claiming there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ score not on me to explain the nature of the environmental differences and how significant an impact each variable has.

Your wanting to only address psychometric research while ignoring a direct response to the main argument does not challenge my position on Scientific Racism and why it is a pseudoscientific topic. Trying to twist the claim with burden of proof shifting to say that if I can't prove the significance of environmental inequality I am scapegoating Whites by unjustly blaming them for Blacks having lower average IQs is nonsense and a troll tactic.

 

Er, no actually you invented a stupid analogy in a pretty lame attempt at rebuttal.

Questioning history? You mean "concluding" that there was no holocaust? That isn't questioning history, that is reinventing it.

As a holocaust denier you are either a nazi apologist or a jew hater or both. In my 35 years of confronting denialists I have NEVER encountered anyone who doesn't fit. Not a single person out of literally hundreds.

You think I haven't heard that little blurb before?

No I am painting an accurate picture. As to shoddy scholarship, I agree it can be found on BOTH sides, with one major difference.

Holocaust denial consists ENTIRELY of shoddy scholarship. Where as within the accepted historical narrative it represents a small minority.

I totally agree questioning history is not bigotry. Got a question? No, you have a conclusion based on the biggest crock of bullcrap pseudo academic nonsense. Anytime you'd like to start a thread in the history forum to present the results of your
academic research, I'll be happy to point out EXACTLY how "unacademic" denial really is.

I am a bigot against bigots. I live my bigotry regularly because I interact with bigots regularly, like right now.

Its not reasoning, it is empirical fact.

Get back to me when you acquire some.

 

Again, this is a correlation/causation fallacy. Merely citing these things does not prove they have impact on IQ, let alone the massive one you claim. I'd love to see proof that "voting rights" and "burning churches" decrease collective IQ. None of the sources you have yet provided prove that "discrimination and poverty" lowered black average IQ to the degree that the two factors alone explain the IQ gap.

Your underlying premise is that we all have equal IQs but environmental horrors made it otherwise. What is your proof that we have equal IQs sans invoked temporary environmental conditions?

Why hasn't 2,000 years of the persecution and mass murder of Jews not reduced their IQs? They've been subjected to genocide, ethnic and religious persecution, forced conversions, quotas, discrimination of every kind. Yet European Jewry have higher average incomes, higher education levels, and higher average IQs than gentile European whites. That is something you still cannot answer to.

I deny your conclusions as they are racist scapegoating. You intentionally draw the boundaries to ignore everything other than a blame-white-people-for-it-all explanation.

Now you're getting to the point of comparing black intellect to lab rats. Again, why didn't this happen to Jews?

It is in light of that you cannot invoke these issues merely having existed in time as proof of anything. That's still a correlation/causation fallacy. You're just taking Critical Race Theory and trying to apply it to psychology.

Which for all we know is a product of the IQs of the people in those conditions as opposed to a pervasive oppressor forcing them. How do we know that they wouldn't have similar average IQs anyway? I see no compelling reason to think otherwise considering the Wilson Effect and the high heritability of adult IQ as I've repeatedly shown. As this isn't 1820, there is no pervasive oppressive conditions going on for black people: They are free to live, work, and be educated where they so choose.

And again, why aren't the Jews having the same problem?

This is repetitive nonsense. You pasted Graves' assertions (a very common view among the political left) and didn't care to note that he didn't provide any scholarly defense of what he said. You seem to think someone with a fancy job title saying it is enough.

It is not. Even Graves can't explain why groups like Jews have been oppressed and persecuted much longer than blacks and thrive anyway.

You haven't proven that, and the burden of proof is on YOU for asserting that "discrimination and poverty" caused the black/white IQ gap. Rationalizing and invoking historical victimhood like you are repeatedly here isn't a scientific approach in the least.

My wanting? I addressed the sources you invoked and you can't defend them. You and Graves continue to misstate (although somewhere along the line misstatement turns into intent to deceive) the increase in heritability of a number of human traits into adulthood which includes but is not limited to IQ heritability. Yes, the burden of proof is on YOUR claims about the cause of the black/white IQ gap and you're failing horribly.

And as I said before, since Graves isn't a psychologist, he shouldn't step out of his boundaries and discuss topics of psychology. Remember how you said Rushton doing that proved he was a fraud? Same standard here. I've explained this to you before, but after a time you go back to it and start over like I never said anything.

 

I wasn't "rebutting" anything. I was illustrating why your argument was horribly simplistic and weak.

I said questioning gassings specifically. As you clearly intentionally did not read my last post, it's no wonder you're this confused about my position.

Note to you: I am not the type to fold because some internet bully tries to scream me into silence, and that's what you've been doing.

No, you mean in your years of encountering skeptics you never accepted one explaining they aren't a Nazi, just like now. It is not remotely intellectually plausible to intentionally admit you ignore people denying liking Hitler and then turning around saying you never encountered someone that disliked Hitler. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm sure you have heard it before because it happens all the time. You really put the holocaust on a pedestal. You think it's possible for people to question and disbelieve in Jesus but not to question and disbelieve in the gassing of the Jews. That's quite an astounding, idolatrous remark.

There isn't one major difference, but at least you admit the exterminationist side does in fact suffer from shoddy scholarship. You cannot "paint an accurate picture" when you conclude a slew of hostile things about someone simply for expressing disbelief in mass gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau while intentionally ignoring everything else they have to say. That's you talking to yourself, using the language of rage and prejudice.

You have a hostility problem.

Again more proof you never did any comparative reading and research, but it's not going to happen when you're so closed-minded and full of shaking, quaking rage that you refuse to even read a person's whole post explaining their position to you.

I think what you mean is that questioning history OUTSIDE of the "holocaust" story isn't bigotry. Outside of your ethnic taboo, you don't care who questions what.

With the kind of rage you express at someone's mere skepticism, you are going to die a very angry man with serious multiple comorbidities resulting from stress-induced hypertension.

I actually wrote a revisionist paper on a claimed mass gassing witness which was published at CODOH. Since the near decade it was published, not one exterminationist historian has responded to salvage that loser's cred in spite of his being cited in a number of so-called history books and testifying at the Polish Tribunal and the Frankfurt Trials.

Indeed, he had no reply himself until he died a few years ago. He had nothing to say for himself. I reveled in it, trust me.

All you are intellectually capable of doing is crying "FRAUD." That is not "pointing out" anything. That's screaming and trying shout people down.

It makes me wonder what kind of environment you were raised in that you think you can accomplish getting what you want by persistent screaming.

Show me where in the dictionary of the English language that questioning a historical event is the definition of bigotry.

You have no claim to call someone a bigot as you refuse to read most of their posts without a poisoned, prejudiced, bigoted mind. And in that, you revel in your prejudice and bigotry, rendering coherent conversation with you impossible as you insist on plugging your ears and screaming Nazi at them.

You keep confusing your personal opinions with facts.

Except you don't read most of my posts, so why pretend you will now?

You're playing games. You're just another hostile, bunker mentality, loud mouthed internet bully. I am not impressed.

 

Lots of ethnic groups have been subjected to persecution at one time or another. Ashkenazi Jews in America and other countries in recent years have not been subjected to oppression that affects them on a Socioeconomic level. In Western countries the average person (aside from Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist types like yourself) consider Jews to be White. They have a cultural background that explains their success.

A good counter argument to your claim is the fact that African immigrants in America have much better success on average then African-Americans and Whites academically. Most of them come from educated families who could afford to immigrate to America. If Black Africans had such low IQs due to genetic differences this wouldn't be possible. Culture has a strong impact on the nurturing of intelligence and environmental factors affect culture.

No, you are shifting the burden of proof. Environment has an impact on IQ. This is an established fact. Controlling certain environmental variables also shows that IQ gaps can be eliminated. We know for an objective fact that environmental inequality has a negative impact on IQ. What you are now claiming is that the IQ gaps between groups are too wide for any environmental difference to explain them. Says who? If studies show that controlling environmental variables can eliminate them then they can be eliminated. Beyond that the burden of proof is on you or anyone claiming that there are alternative explanations such as genetic differences that can explain the cause of the gaps.

You simply don't have an argument beyond "prove that environmental variables like poverty and discrimination have enough impact to cause gaps." No, the opponents of Scientific Racism don't need to prove that Variable X impacts IQ by a certain amount of points. The argument is that there is no scientific basis for claiming that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. The scientific research that falsifies this claim has been provided by me which you have displayed an inability to address.

I have already provided plenty of evidence that human populations have the same genetic potential for intelligence based on population genetics research, genomics research and anthropological research on human evolution. You have failed to respond to any of this research which has been posted all over this thread but here's are some old and new articles for you to take a crack at that specifically answer your question.

Cliff notes:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.

 

You are shifting the burden of proof and playing victim which is dishonest and extremely offensive. I didn't make up the history of America. If you feel guilty for what other White people did that's your problem. The ways in which Whites oppressed Blacks in America has had a social, economic, physical, and psychological effect which has an impact on the intelligence, behavior and health of African-Americans which racists have twisted to say that these trends were caused by genetic differences. The burden of proof is one anyone invoking genetics. I have already disproved that claim. Your argument is fixated on saying "Well you just blame White people for everything and that's unfair and racist."

That's like a man raping a woman and then when she starts having suicidal thoughts complaining that he has been unfairly victimized by being blamed for her psychological problems then seeking alternative explanations such as her having heritable personality traits that make her more prone to suicidal thoughts.

You won't defend the genetic argument because you don't know how to while I have stated that because the genetic hypothesis has been falsified the environmental hypothesis (the only other plausible explanation) has been validated. You don't need to know the nature of the environment and the impact of specific environmental variables to conclude that environment is the explanation. The fact that you keep repeating this argument shows that you don't understand quantitative genetics.

Rats are a good model organism for laboratory experiments on a mammal whose intelligence is influenced by the same mechanisms as humans. If you don't understand such a basic fact of biology then you really have no background or knowledge on the subject.

No, I'm not. In fact this sort of research is taught in the same book you claimed you read. Didn't they cover differential psychology in the classes you claim to have took in college? I wrote a paper on the subject in college and got an A.



(Start 47:00)



In the video above you can see the same argument and type of information being taught by a professor at Yale in his lecture on differential psychology. He directly addresses the cause of racial IQ gaps.

He wrote full papers refuting the racial hereditarian argument with sources as well as chapters on it in his books (ex. "The Race and IQ Fallacy"). Curiously you claim this is Graves' argument when it was written in my own words and is taught in college textbooks including a book on psychology that you claimed to have read!

Your credibility as a knowledgeable poster on this subject has been completely destroyed.

Some cultures have survived persecution or rebuilt themselves and others struggle under persistent discrimination depending on the time period and circumstances. Interestingly in Graves' paper "The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve" he mentions that when Jewish immigrants were coming to America and living in ghettos IQ tests were used by eugenicists to try to keep them out of institutions due to their reputation for having difficulty with them.

So not even Jews were exempt from being discriminated against based on Scientific Racism. If Jews could at one time be deemed a mentally inferior race based on IQ testing then that should tell you how lacking in credibility racial theories based on this research are. Of course I would expect the counter argument to be that IQ tests in the early 1900s were not as refined as they are now however the argument for genetic causality to racial differences in IQ is the same just with some different targets and it is all based on the same pseudoscientific premise that was used by 19th Century White Supremacists, American Eugenicists, Nazi Scientists, Segregationists and modern White Nationalists to justify their racist ideological agendas.

 

It seems to me a very large aspect of this involves Culture vs. Race. A tribal society will be far more violent and barbarian than a monarchy. Thousand of years of Tribalism will take a long time to change and to expect adaptation in a century or so is simply unrealistic. Evolving a monarchy into democracy is relatively easy in comparison.

 

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. A tribal society can be relatively peaceful, only fighting others in self-defense, while a monarchy can commit genocide against its neighbors. Who is more violent and barbaric under those conditions? You can also have democracy within a tribe which is relatively easy to do depending on the values of the people while convincing a monarchy to embrace democracy may be extremely difficult given that the ruler may not want to give up power.

I do agree that culture has a strong impact on behavior. Cultural development is not linear. A group of people can establish a way of life that suits their needs and practice it for generations. That doesn't make them less intelligent than a group of people who are constantly changing in a short time period. All human societies shared similar survival strategies for thousands of years and many civilizations thought the tribal societies around them were primitive savages regardless of what they looked like. European explorers just happened to travel around the world encountering societies that were still living a tribal, hunter-gatherer lifestyle on different continents who looked different than them and associated their superficial physical characteristics with their culture and called this race. Cultural Anthropologists have long ago rejected these racist views and recognized that human behavior is too complex to make generalizations about the ability of groups of people based on their cultures.

 

If that was in fact the case, I suggest drawing classes at your earliest convenience.

Gassing specifically? Based on what do you question the gassing? On Leuchter's outrageous incompetence? On faurissons missing vents? On that idiot Cole's "doors"?

Or perhaps on Eichmann's televised testimony.

Like I said, I am completely conversant with the "denialist" oeuvre. Maybe you can start offering up the extensive research you have done to arrive at this wholly unacademic, unsubstantiated jew hating conclusion? I'll wait if necessary.

If they didn't admit to being a nazi, or a nazi apologist (e.g. rockwell vs zundel) then by default they were simply a run of the mill jew hater.

One issue that constantly arises with denialists is not only their denial of the holocaust itself but also their denial of having anything other than an academic interest in the subject. INtellectual cowards.

The gassing of the jews in not in question except for jew haters and nazi apologists.

Put the holocaust on a pedestal? that is probably the stupidest thing I've heard around here in at least a week.

As for questioning the gassing. YOUR ******N RIGHT I AM HOSTILE TO SUCH PERFIDY. And I also enjoy it, so I don't see it as a problem at all, more like a hobby,.

Now that's funny.

You think wrong, but you seem to exhibit a pattern of such.

Mere skepticism? You didn't express skepticism you expressed your CONCLUSION it didn't happen.

You don't seem very experienced about the actual so called "evidence" for denialism, but you sure do know all the rhetorical tricks.

HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not one scholar refuted your paper. Probably because not one real scholar would waste their time. CODOH ?? that bastion of academic intergrity? You have no idea how funny you really are.

Try to keep it straight will you.

I said questioning the holocaust was bigotry

 

I think the Holocaust Denial debate is more appropriate for another thread. While I agree with Jonsa on the subject I would really prefer that we discuss Scientific Racism. Empress has some major points to address in my last post concerning the history of Jewish IQ and the conclusion that they had a moronic character. How can you defend racial theories of IQ when certain groups have been labeled morons and geniuses at different time periods? Those are important questions and the Holocaust is relevant to this thread in so far as it relates to how Scientific Racism was used to justify it. Debating deniers is a subject that should be discussed in its own thread.

I will say that I feel Empress set herself up for the criticism she is getting in this thread. If you're going to deny the Holocaust happened and then claim you don't have a racist agenda for making that claim you bring it on yourself when someone points out your post history is full of Nazi fetishism and promoting genocide against Jews. Going so far as to say that an Egalitarian poster of Jewish descent should be thrown in to a concentration camp is beyond reprehensible and absolutely disqualifies you from making the claim that your Holocaust Denial is honest skepticism of a historical event devoid of anti-Semitic sentiment. You are a racist and a Jew hater. If you didn't deny it you wouldn't be called out on it.

I will also say that I reviewed the rules and I don't see anything about bringing up a poster's post history outside of the message board being against the rules. I would ask that the moderators please review their own rules and communicate with posters before handing out any infractions or post deletions. This is not a call out, I am only making this point because Empress has publicly complained about this but in this same thread she has accused others of being the real racists, denied being a racist and anti-Semite as well as discussed the behavior of other posters outside of the board. If it's not against the rules it's fair game to bring it up as a counter to a claim made by the poster. You shouldn't be able to claim to be unbiased on a subject and pretend to be unfairly labeled and criticized when your post history contradicts your claims.

 

I am not aware of any relation between genetics or intelligence quotient.

 

There is a relation between genes and intelligence. The problem with the argument of people like Empress is that they fixate on the high heritability IQ and claim that this gives implications for the cause of differences between groups. It doesn't. All that means is that genes related to intelligence are inherited from your parents. If your parents are intelligent you are more likely to inherit their genetic potential for intelligence. However intelligence has to be nurtured to maximize your genetic potential. If you grow up in a bad environment no matter how intelligent you can potentially be you will never realize your full genetic potential and this can be reflected in measures of intelligence such as IQ tests.

The argument against the genetic hypothesis for the cause of racial differences in IQ is that there is no scientific basis to claim that there is a genetic component given that you can not fully control for the environment in racially stratified societies and there is no selection mechanism that could explain why populations within a species like humans would differ for a trait like intelligence which would be favored by natural selection in all environments. Graves outlines the fallacy of the racial hereditarian argument in his book.

Take note of the sentences in bold. This argument is also mentioned in college textbooks including the one Empress claimed to have read so she can't claim that this argument is outside of the realm mainstream psychology as anyone who has ever studied differential psychology would have to learn about this research.




This renders discussion over the specific research Empress has chosen to argue about completely meaningless. The Wilson Effect is irrelevant to my position. IQ stabilizing in adulthood and showing a larger difference between racial groups in adults than it does in children can be interpreted as the environmental differences between people worsening as they get older. Since we know that many environmental differences exist between groups you can't make the argument that genetic differences are the cause of groups differences in IQ. This can not be proven experimentally and there is no scientific basis to make the claim in the first place.

There are certainly a lot of problems with IQ testing including the definition of intelligence, the treatment of the concept of g which IQ tests are supposed to measure as a physical attribute, the inability of the tests to measure certain aspects of intelligence such as creativity, cultural bias in the test, systematic bias, test construction and when it comes to IQ data researchers can manipulate data and fudge numbers to manufacture a desired result. So the numbers we are getting for certain groups aren't necessarily reliable. Numbers have also changed dramatically for certain populations (ex. Jews as mentioned above) and the test scores have to constantly be renormalized as improvement in teaching methods and environmental conditions has caused recent generations of people to improve in their ability to answer test questions leading to a new standard of what is considered an average score (The Flynn Effect).

But the fundamental point is that there is no scientific basis to the claim that there is a genetic component to group differences in IQ. The reported gaps can 100% be explained environmentally, environmental inequality exists of which there are many, many variables (ex. social discrimination (stereotype threat), environmental toxicity (pollution), malnutrition, education, diet, stress, parenting, national culture, trouble sleeping, mental illness, diseases (ex. Multiple Sclerosis and Malaria) etc.).

The degree to which each variable impacts intelligence is unknown and impossible to determine since there are too many factors to consider. What matters is that genetics can be ruled out based on sound genetic reasoning and recent research on genome-wide association studies also support this position. Asking why Group X has higher IQ than Group Y when both have been discriminated against historically is also completely meaningless as not all groups have been discriminated against in the same way and to the same extent and cultures can change over time allowing a formally oppressed group to rise in Socioeconomic Status which can also be reflected in IQ score.





Environmental inequality caused by racial discrimination is real and no amount of denial, trivializing the meaning of basic concepts, burden of proof shifting, leading questions and accusations of bias are going to change the established fact that scientific research over the last several decades has thoroughly discredited the arguments of racists promoting pseudoscience to justify their ideological agenda.

 

Sadly, it's not even a correlation /causation fallacy. He hasn't provided correlation as evidence.

All the while he rejects correlation consensus on brain volume/iq as correlation/causation fallacy.

Yes; ej believes things without evidence then dismisses evidence out of hand when it contradicts his belief system.

 

My position is based on scientific evidence from credible sources.

What sources have you provided to support the position that human evolution has resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that cause differences in intelligence? Provide some sources that support this conclusion. I have provided plenty of sources refuting that claim and I also have provided sources refuting the argument of Empress concerning the environmental impact on IQ in my last post.

 

Among Graves Stupidest, most Dishonest pieces of Crap.
Congrats, you bought it. and then further abused it for good measure.

Because, ie, Ross was an anti-semite, and called Jews "Overly Literate" and "Morons", then ALL claims past and present, even if true and backed by Data, are 'Racist.'

Ross made no bones about the Fact he wanted to "quota out" Jews, Poles, etc Despite GOOD Tests results,.
Current Race-Denier-Racists, want to "quota in" Blacks Despite BAD tests!
HUGE difference.

Hitler had to Ban IQ tests because they proved him wrong.
The New Nazis want to dismiss/fudge the Same tests, because they prove them wrong.

No one was under any illusion about Jewish intelligence "70 years" ago, or 270 years ago.
The Rothschilds banking empire started in 1760 and by 100 years later was the world's largest fortune.

80 Years ago, everyone already regarded Einstein as the foremost Genius on the Planet.. and still do.

The 100+ yr old infamous 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' was about a Jewish plot to take over and rule the world. Something the Zulus, or any other sub-Saharan will never be accused of... unless it's comedy hour.

150 Years ago, an ethnic Jew, Benjamin Disraeli was PM of a still healthily antisemitic England.

NONE of this is comparable to the 'Black' situation which - along with the opposite Jewish one - has been demonstrated by :"70 Years" of "improved psychometrics"/IQ tests, and life outcomes.

Empress was comparing Jewish persecution to Black persecution and showing how Jews overcame it, while blacks keep proving they are worthy of the lack of IQ respect they get.
And she is Right.
Your post a numbing/backfiring deflection that you thought was a good analogy.

Merely posting that some anti-semite suggested that Jews were Morons/should be quota-ed, doesn't mean suggesting blacks have lower IQ's isn't true.
Always the Fallacious attempts.
And they are so bad, one has to wonder if there are disingenuity or just vacuous.

Again, the Data and life outcomes, as well AS the Jews, show it is true.
And no one is/Ever suggested Blacks are "Overly literate" as criticism or compliment.
It would be a preposterous/baffling 'accusation.' (and impossible)
+

PS: one also notes your spamming/repetition continues.
Past 7 pages contain:
18 Graves quote boxes or Youtubes,
FOUR postings of the 'Flower Box', and several other three-petes.
Is this a defensive attempt to look "overly literate".. or prove non-conversance?
+

 

This is a prime example of your lack of reading comprehension. The quote by Graves clearly shows that Ross believed based on the IQ testing of the day that Jews were mentally inferior and didn't want them being over-represented in American institutions. I also posted a chart showing the type of data Ross was basing his opinion on which showed that several ethnic groups, many of them from European immigrant populations, did not do well on tests of superior intelligence as a group. In fact Black military officers were among the highest of the group but in the estimate of men like Ross Blacks, Jews and other groups were mentally inferior because as a group they didn't have high IQs which in his mind meant that even the smarter ones among them (the "overliterate" by the standards of a Black or Jew) needed to be kept out of American institutions as they descended from inferior racial stock. I also showed a chart of many European ethnic groups, some with IQs lower than the reported American Black average of 85.

To an objective observer this obviously indicates that there is something wrong with the racial theories of people who use IQ tests. I have pointed out many problems with IQ testing and the racial hereditarian argument in general. I find it interesting that you ignored all of that and focused on only one point about Jewish IQ but managed to fail even in your rebuttal to that research. Your racist views about Blacks aren't any more scientific than the anti-Semitic views of Ross. They are based on the pseudoscientific belief in racial hierarchies in intelligence that have been dismissed by scientific research done over a period of decades.

 

You can take a peek at the first page of this paper and understand how ridiculous the psychometric program was back then. R. A. Ross was very likely to be a KKK member, pushing the group's political agenda in academia.

.https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

Oh and here's a brain teaser for you. Einstein was indeed incredibly intelligent and widely regarded as the greatest genius of all time. You can listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of the foremost experts on Astrophysics, attest to that by showing that Einstein was so smart that what he thought was his greatest blunder was actually validated by modern science.



Now here's my question. If human evolution resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that cause differences in intelligence then why did Einstein have a normal sized brain? He was in your opinion the smartest man in the world yet his brain was only 1230g when it was weighed at autopsy. That's less than the average male brain which is estimated to be about 1336g (Hartmann, 1994). That's also less than the reported average weight in grams of all racial groups including Africans!

Look at the chart for yourself from Lieberman (2001) which shows different racial hierarchies and the methods used by various researchers.



Notice that Einstein's brain actually weighs less than all of the racial groups reported by Davis. Now Einstein was 76 when he died and it is true that brain weight declines in old age however he was still highly intelligent in the later stages of his life. Can you explain why the greatest genius in the history of the world, in your opinion, who supposedly inherited his high intelligence from his Jewish ancestry did not have an exceptionally large brain if bigger brains = greater intelligence? Dr. Graves of course has the answer to your question which is a refutation to the biggest proponent of Scientific Racism in modern history.

Explain why he is wrong and provide sources. When you fail to do so you will have shown not only your inability to debate on my level and support your arguments with evidence but also show the reason why I keep quoting this information. Because you don't know how to refute it! If you can then answer the question.

They are still ridiculous. Most of the scholars who promote Scientific Racism are Pioneer Fund Grantees whose founder was quoted as saying he just wanted to prove Blacks were inferior and helped finance Nazi Scientists. All of these people haves ties to the KKK and other hate groups in one way or another. Ross is merely an ideological forebear of modern White Nationalists and like-minded racists.

 

Racists truly don't give a crap what your credible sources are nor what they say. You've provided all the evidence necessary to destroy this idiotic racist notion but it doesn't matter to them. They are EMOTIONALLY invested in their hatred and are intellectually incapable of accepting anything to the contrary.

 

Oh I see where how you got confused. I am stating facts and ADDING my personal opinion about those who reject such facts.

ahhahahahahahhhahahahahahahahah! Oh that is hilarious. Confront you and demand you produce your "evidence" and you come up with that as a lame arsed response? Oh my such intellectual bravery.

1. True - I am extremely hostile to jew haters and nazi lovers and white supremacists.
2. Untrue - It is you who have yet to profer a scintilla of evidence, merely reguritate a bumpersticker opinion.
3. True - I am extremely vocal and can articulate my derisive contempt with precision.
4. True - I do so enjoy confronting jew haters and nazi lovers and white supremacists and religious fanatics and yer run o the mill bigots.

Since impressing you has never been my objective, if anything exactly the opposite, you will just have to live with the fact that your opinion is entirely worthless to me. I am a bigot remember.[/QUOTE]

 

So what is the correlation coefficient for poverty and IQ?

 

How did you come to the conclusion ndt is one of the foremost experts in astrophysics?

 

there are at least two direct correlations - financial/personal distress, and quality of education.


Studies show that those undergoing high psychological distress consistently score lower by substantive margin than when not.

Those lacking education cannot score highly on a standard IQ test due to ignorance, not intelligence.

 

@rayznack

I can easily answer both of your questions however I'm not going to encourage your habit of ignoring questions and responding with leading questions. I have provided evidence for my position throughout this thread. So first answer my question directed to you, that you quoted and provide the sources requested of you. Then you will get an answer to both of your questions in addition to a response to the research you present. If you don't do this you will have demonstrated that you are not debating in good faith and this is more than fair considering how much research I have presented that has not been properly addressed.

 

I have never met a racist who debates in good faith. I think you suffer from unrealistic expectations.