Black and white nationalism is a hustle and a scam

Now white race hustling historically has existed since the dawn of America. The idea of "whiteness" was once given to poor and uneducated whites who the elites feared would ban together with the black lower class against the rich. Over the years white race hustling has taken many forms, and different things have lured white into nationalist groups. The latest white nationalist ideology is race realism.


Now I'm not going to get into how inaccurate race realism actually is. It doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate it is. The purpose of race realism was never to be great science. Guys like Jared Taylor and Charles Murray have been shown to cherry pick studies as long as it fits their narrative. But the key is that white nationalism is meant specifically to invoke inner anger towards black Americans. This is why "race realism" spends a ton of times talking about all of the negative things that impacts blacks. It's an essential part of white nationalist ideology.

Now we can look at black nationalist ideology, and it's latest iteration called "Melanin theory". And you'll notice one thing. Black people always talking about the inferiority of white people. Black people talking about how terrible and evil white people are.

There is a convergence here. Both melanin theory and racial realism are the latest iteration of ethnonationalism. This time they are using science to justify their means. The thing is that melanin theory and race realism has never been fully debunked. So it appeals to a lot of black and white people who are usually lower income, but have become disenfranchised with religion. It appeals to a scientifically curious mind that is also full of anger and perceived inequality. So it's "good enough" science to validate a person's feeling of superiority.

There are many many race hustlers black and white. Umar Johnson, Polight, Dr. Serbi are the black race hustlers. Charles Murray, Jared Taylor are all white race hustlers.


So what is the overall goal and objective of race hustlers and ethno-nationalism? Well that's simple, money. All race hustlers get a lot of money speaking, usually put up by poor people of each race. But one has to wonder IF there is a more systematic reason for ethno-nationalism. And there is. It's for control.

 

While I agree with much of what you said here, a couple of the people you listed make me question your motives. This type of writing reminds me of Tim Wise and his tactics. You will give as much truth as possible and then try to discredit people who have been providing their communities with knowledge for quite some time. For example, Umar Johnson provides his listeners with information on how to keep doctors from drugging their children (ADHD "diagnosis") and sabotaging their education. It is little known stuff and he makes people aware of what's happening in the school system.

Polight engages the community and challenges long-held beliefs through education and debates. Besides, it is far better to build and spend money with someone who challenges you to think critically than to waste money tithing with the church.

Jared Taylor and Charles Murray peddles pseudoscience that other white organizations uses to fleece subscribers, so I can see a case there.

 

The science on black-white differences show white have larger brain volume and greater frequency of genes correlated with educational attainment. Brain volume itself is correlated with IQ.

The differences between blacks and whites are concrete. Science has shown we're different, not equal. Indeed, nothing has shown whites and blacks have equivalent in ability or genetics.

 

Of course that's nonsense. The only thing you have to hold onto is IQ. And I can certainly think of numerous counter arguments against that. But it wouldn't matter. The intent of race realism is to show how superior whites are to blacks. It's funny how other groups have LOWER IQs than blacks, yet race realist focus all of their time on blacks. There is a reason for that. They feel they are in competition with blacks, and feel that it's necessary to show how inadequate the competition is. There aren't enough Asians in America to really cut into the white person's bottomline, so they don't really focus their energy on Asians honestly. Nor do the average white person really feels threatened by Asians. But they do feel threatened by blacks.


Enter white nationalism. Because of fear, white nationalism is a thing. And white nationalist race pimps like Jared Taylor are there to feed you ALL sorts of BS that makes the white man feel important and "scientific".

 

Of course we all know that you base your claims primarily on the racist pseudoscience of Rushton. Scientific Racism or Race-Realism has been thoroughly discredited. This pseudoscience serves a racist ideological agenda which aims to justify racial prejudice and discrimination through the myth that human populations have diverged to the point where they exhibit differences in mental characteristics that determine culture. I will now address your claims point by point.


Claim #1: The science on black-white differences show white have larger brain volume.

This claim was refuted decades ago (Tobias, 1970). Most of the studies that Rushton relied on for his claim of brain volume differences between races are very old and did not control for variables that could give more accurate measurements. He also manipulated data and misrepresented studies to make his arguments which have been shown to be incorrect by other researchers (Lieberman, 2001).

Several researchers have reported that there are no reliable measurements of brain size sufficient to conclude that there is a racial hierarchy and the correlation between brain size and intelligence is moderate at best (McDaniel, 2005).




Furthermore, the brain size differences Rushton reports for races are too small to explain no more than a tiny percentage of the Black-White IQ gap which Rushton claimed was 80% genetically determined (Wicherts, 2010).

The science shows that Rushton's brain size/evolutionary arguments were based on a fallacy and that his claims of a racial hierarchy in brain size that determines intelligence differences is invalid (Graves, 2002).

Claim #2: And greater frequency of genes correlated with educational attainment.

Your claim is no doubt based on the studies of Davide Piffer which you have discussed in other threads. I'm actually involved in a debate on another message board where Piffer's research was brought up and I have decided to email some geneticists to have them look at this work. One observation I can make is that Piffer's study was published in Mankind Quarterly, a journal notorious for publishing research that supports Scientific Racism so his motives are suspect. However I've been made aware that he recently got a study published in the journal Intelligence. I'm also emailing geneticists to look at Graves' article addressing race and intelligence which indicates that genes related to IQ do not show racial association.

From the article:

If I get responses to my questions I will create another thread containing the emails.


Claim #3: Nothing has shown whites and blacks have equivalent in ability or genetics.

The equivalence in genetic potential for intelligence between Whites and Blacks has been demonstrated by controlling for environmental variables that influence IQ, showing that the Black-White IQ gap can be eliminated (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1996). Further evidence in the form of research showing Black IQ converging on White IQ, racial admixture studies show low to no correlation between White ancestry and high Black IQ, intervention programs showing IQ can be boosted and adoption studies showing that Black IQ can equal White IQ when environment is similar support the pure environmental model for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap indicating that there is no genetic component (Nisbett, 2005). Between the years 1972 and 2002 Blacks gained 4-7 IQ points significantly reducing the Black-White IQ gap (Dickens and Flynn, 2006). Differences in IQ between Blacks and Whites are not caused by genetic differences and recent research shows that there are almost no genetic polymorphisms that have been discovered which are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range(Nisbett, 2012).





Your claims are simply not credible. They are based on pseudoscience from biased researchers who seek to promote racism with their discredited theories.

 

I love how dishonest you are as an individual. This is similar to you re-posting Nisbett to new posters and on different forums after you were chased away on previous forums because you couldn't defend his work.

Your head was bashed in the last time you cited Tobias. He didn't conduct studies, rather, he made assumptions - without evidence - that Blacks are disadvantaged in every type of brain measurement. He claims - again, without evidence - that *if* you adjust for gender, time of post-mortem autopsy, etc., the differences in brain volume disappear. Of course his unsubstantiated and risible assumption that there is always a female favored gender imbalance for Blacks (due to females having smaller brain volume) is beyond ridiculous. There's no evidence head, skull and brain volume studies on Blacks and Whites favor Whites with more males. Not only did you flee when this was pointed out to you, but you ignore recent studies where authors explicitly control for gender, age and educational attainment.

The most recent study using MRI technology on Black and White brain volume differences controls for age, gender and educational attainment, and shows Whites have larger brains than Blacks.

Every study ever conducted on head, skull and brain volume has shown Whites have larger brains than Blacks.

Curiously, you are at another loss for explanation for many of these same or similar studies which show Northeast Asians having larger or similar brain volume to Whites.



http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013642

 

More of the typical garbage I can expect from your sources along the lines of making assumptions and theorizing the results based on these often time ridiculous assumptions.

The intervention programs you mention actually show Black IQ regressing into adulthood. You've been reminded this fact for what seems like dozens of times but repeat your claim without this important caveat. You're simply dishonest.

And I see you're back to citing Nisbett when you can't even defend him as a source!

You are thoroughly dishonest.

 

What are all these races who have lower IQ than Blacks?

Do they have higher violent crime rates, too?

I find it funny you dismiss evidence because it rubs against your political agenda.

The only nonsense is your argument.

Facts are Blacks have lower brain volume than Whites, adopted Black children raised in White middle class households have lower IQ than White and Asian adopted children, Black children from wealthy Black parents have lower IQ than White children from the same socio-economic class, admixture studies show positive correlation between White heritage and IQ, and Blacks in enhanced learning environments revert in IQ into adulthood.

 

As a person who works in Big Data, and would be happy to write a computer program, I can't. And you want to know why? Because I don't have any raw data. None, nowhere. After crawling the internet. Raw Data concerning race and IQ is nowhere to be found. So even if I wanted to prove and verify it myself, I can't. Because the data really isn't out there. What you consider evidence are "studies" that are usually never sourced. Such as the "black white" study. Where are the raw numbers? None are there. What was the "standard' of wealth for black parents? No one says. I've even have gone as far as to email both Jared Butler and Charles Murray to get my hands on this raw data. But none is out there.

The very fact that no one can get this data and do it themselves says a lot. Only these mythical social scientist seem to be able to get this raw data. In a world of machine learning and big data. You would think you "science minded" race realist would create an API for me. But you haven't and you won't. And you want to know why? Because race science is not mean to be science.

Race science is only practiced by the white man. Why is it that I've never seen one Asian race realist? You want to know why? Because Asians would say it's cultural and environment as to why they are the way they are. You will never hear an Asian believing that they have a high IQ because of amazing genes. You'll only hear there attribute their IQ to their culture, their family, and their upbring. You see Asians are only good when they fit your narrative. Only when they help you compete against blacks.

And I've come to the conclusion that race realism isn't about science. It's about emotionalism. I know it, deep down inside you know it. Guys like Jared Taylor definitely know it.

Your all white paradise will never happen. Never in the free market. Where money is more important than race. Ask Jared Taylor which color he likes the most. He'll tell you with his actions, by taking as much green as he can. We are living in a world where we have multinational corporations making more money than companies have EVER made. Diversity and business is a way of life. No way anyone is going to move towards any white only or black only society. Not in this world. Not ever. Both races will go extinct before we'll ever have that again. The world is shrinking, and cultural lines are being crossed. And there is no turning back. Deal with it.

 

Here is a primary source - raw data - EJ has continued to ignore since I've posted it a half dozen times on this forum:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013642

Using MRI technology and controlling for age, gender and educational attainment, Whites were found to have larger brain volume than Blacks.

After you read through the link I'll provide you with all the raw data on brain volume differences you could ever wish for.

Are you aware there have been three studies on malnourished Korean infants adopted by Whites in the Netherlands, US and Denmark (I believe) who scored higher than the control group of White adopted children? How do you explain 'environment and culture' as the cause for their higher IQ?

 

Actually I'm not going to even argue it. These also aren't raw numbers. This is just a study. And maybe your ideas of "raw" varies from mine. But when I saw raw I mean "raw". I need an actual data source with this information untouched. I would prefer to build my own models myself. So I can get a full understanding of this methology. And still I know of no raw numbers.

But let's forget about that for right now. Because I'm going to go as far as to saw IQ doesn't even matter. And nope, I have no scientific basis for saying that. I feel that there is NO subject in the world that even requires a high IQ. And if you can name me one, we can continue the debate. I believe someone with an 85 IQ could learn theorhetical physics, linear algebra, and any technical subject. Because I don't believe that any technical job actually requires any level of intellect at all.

Now that's my radical claim. And I'm so want you to challenge it, because I will explain to you why a high IQ is actually just superfluous.

 

My mistake on raw data. You are correct, and I don't know why I said as such, especially since I'm not familiar with studies releasing raw data.

Why do you suppose racial groups follow certain trends regardless of culture or environment conditions?

I note crime rates in White run society typically show Northeast Asians are less violent than Whites who are less violent than Blacks.

Other non-White groups typically always fall between White and Black violent crime rates.

You mention culture and environment being important factors for success for Asians, but many Northeast Asians vary widely in culture and 2nd and 3rd generation Northeast Asians are less culturally similar to Northeast Asians in Asia than to Whites in the White run nations in which these Northeast Asians live.

Do you find your explanation that Northeast Asians are less violent and have higher IQ and educational attainment simply due to culture and environment in every society and in every cultural permutation to which they belong plausible?

 

Northeast Asians when they come to America come with a middle class status. I don't know why this is tossed up as real evidence. The bottomline is, as someone who works in the tech industry, majority of my co-workers have been asian for nearly 20 years. Almost all of them have come to the USA pursuing master degrees in STEM majors. And the second generation ones are just children of parents who are like this. If anyone comes here, and the first thing they do is get an advance degrees. I'm pretty sure they'll be incredibly successful and have incredibly high IQs. But do we take IQ test of stowaways in Chinatown in NYC? You know there are a ton of undocumented Asians in the USA right? Do they get IQ test? Of course not.


To me the case for environment is at least enough of a factor for us not to assume that race and IQ studies are a complete open and closed case. I don't even mind racial realest most of the time. I can appreciate anyone who has a scientific curiosity, no matter how taboo the subject matter is. What I do dislike about racial realist is the arrogance. There is so much counter evidence and environment is most certainly not debunked. But race realist sing the race and IQ thing as the gospel. And I wouldn't mind race realist if every race realist wasn't some white nationalist as well. It feels like a movement, more than actual science.

 

So you didn't bother to discuss the Korean adoption studies or what exactly is culturally influencing Northeast Asians to succeed?

I guess you are also unfamiliar with Japanese and Chinese immigrants prior to WW2 who were typically laborers, lived in ghettos, and whom academics identified as having lower homicide rates than Whites?

 

Asian immigration was incredibly limited until 1965. The asian population at that time was extremely low. I don't think that's all that influential. Blacks had a lower crime rate than whites at the time too. Prohibition caused a huge spike in murders, and was seen amongst Irish, Polish, and Italian immigrants.

 

I love how you pretend your defense of these claims is based on an objective scientific pursuit of truth when it is obvious you have a racist agenda and are just peddling pseudoscience. Why can't you just be honest and admit you don't like Black people? Your pet scholars like Rushton have been thoroughly discredited and yet you insist on citing them and their arguments as if they were the gospel truth.

In reality you are the one who is dishonest so you are just projecting.

That's just a blatant lie. Name one forum where I was chased away because I couldn't defend Nisbett's work. Nisbett is one of my primary sources on the role environment plays in determining IQ and he has not been refuted. I have never abandoned citing him as a source, contrary to the lies you and Empress are telling.

You don't understand Tobias' arguments. Did you even read his article? Tobias reviewed the scientific literature on brain size comparisons between races. He argued that most of the published studies at the date of his review did not control for important variables that physical anthropologists have used to make reliable measurements. Tobias listed 14 variables that were critical to an analysis of accurate brain measurement.

These are the control variables identified by Tobias:

1) Sex
2) Body size
3) Age at death
4) Early-life nutrition
5) Early-life environment
6) Source of sample
7) Occupational group
8) Cause of death
9) Lapse of time after death
10) Temperature after death
11) Anatomical level of severance
12) Presence or absence of cerebral spinal fluid
13) Presence or absence of meninges
14) Presence or absence of blood vessels.

Tobias didn't say anything in the study about controlling for the variables eliminating brain size differences nor did he say that in every study Blacks were disadvantaged relative to Whites or that there were differences in the sex of the samples with females being over-represented among Blacks. He simply said that many of these 14 variables were not controlled therefore these studies were meaningless.
Throughout the paper Tobias gives examples of variables and how they effect the measurement of brain size then notes that these variables were not addressed in the studies that he reviewed. For example
Tobias notes that brain weight varies with body size and that many African populations have smaller body sizes than the average European. Body size was not controlled in these studies. Another variable is the source of sample. Tobias makes a point that the quality of the brain at death is relevant to brain weight and that most samples come from hospitals including mental hospitals where the health of the brain is suspect. The few exceptions are brains donated to science which are given to institutes of forensic medicine that guarantee the quality of the brain ensuring they have no prior disease. Tobias stated that the health of the brains of Blacks in these studies have not been verified. Another example is the age of the brain. The brain decreases in size with age leading to diseases that effect cognitive ability. The age of Black brains was not controlled for in these studies. Another example is nutrition effecting the size of the brain. Malnourished people often have smaller brains. We know that Blacks because of environmental differences are more likely to be malnourished. Nutritional state was not controlled for. Tobias mentions several other examples. You should get the picture. The studies he reviewed simply did not control for variables and there for are unreliable as evidence of racial differences in brain size.

Graves summarizes the significance of Tobias' study here:

The reliability of past studies on brain size and race have been discredited and Rushton relied heavily on many of these studies to make his arguments.

You cherry-picked this study. The fact is that while the study does control for some variables it doesn't control for all the ones mentioned by Tobias. Furthermore the authors of this study were not trying to make an argument about brain size, race and intelligence. They stated in their conclusions that the biological implications of their research were not clear:

I emailed one of the authors for comment when your cited this study before. I just emailed another one.

This is yet another lie. Look at Lieberman's table on changing racial hierarchies. He cited 10 studies which analyzed brain size and found that there was no racial hierarchy.

There is a correlation between brain size and latitude which explains some of the variability in size between populations (Beals, Smith and Dodd, 1984). You are at a loss for an explanation for why scholars like Rushton claim brain size as a key variable in the cause of racial differences in IQ, which he reported to be 80% genetically determined, yet the size differences he reports can not explain any more than 10% of the gap.

How do you explain this?

Brook-Gunn et al. (1996) did not make assumptions or theories concerning results. They controlled for environmental variables and showed that the Black-White IQ gap could be eliminated. How do you explain the research of Dickens and Flynn (2006) which showed that Black Americans made significant IQ gains and g gains reducing the Black-White IQ gap by 0.33 SD? If the gap is immutable and largely genetically determined how do you explain this? Calling sources garbage without reasoning is not a rebuttal.

OK let's investigate that claim....

So according to Nisbett intervention programs can have lasting effects on Black IQ and positively impact IQ at all ages including in to college years. So where is your source claiming that Black IQ can not be boosted in adulthood? It is true according to Dickens and Flynn (2006) that Black IQ regresses as children approach adulthood. This can be explained by differences in nurturing environment. However speaking specifically of intention programs they seem to have good results on boosting Black IQ. Rushton and Jensen cherry-picked a single study to dispute this claim.

We've already established that you have a bad track record for discrediting my sources.

Richard Nisbett is a distinguished Professor of Psychology. His book Intelligence and How to Get It has a 4 out of 5 star rating on Amazon.com with mostly positive reviews. I bought it. When I finish reading it I will respond to Lee's book review that Empress has obsessively spammed across multiple threads. But clearly I can defend Nisbett as a credible source based on the articles of his that I have read. You on the other hand can not defend your primary source Rushton who I showed to be a quack in an older thread. Now could you do the same? Could you summarize Nisbett's work the way I did, point out its major flaws and cite numerous critics who agree with your assessment?

You refused to do this for Graves. I predict that you could not and would not do this against Nisbett. All you have is a single negative book review that one poster constantly rants about and your own flawed criticisms which I have continually refuted as I just did here.

 

Tobias didn't control for variables because he never showed any of these variables disfavored Blacks in brain measurement studies.

What part of this don't you understand?

Tobias never shows post-mortem brain autopsy measurements are conducted later after death than White or Asian brain autopsy measurements.

He merely makes these assumptions to erase the White/Black brain size gap.

Show any or all the studies on post-mortem brain measurements disfavored Blacks over Whites over Asians, including - and especially - on time of brain measurement.

That you and Graves do not understand something so simple after having this explained to you numerous times speaks to your dishonesty and lack of thinking.

My source isn't 'cherry-picked'. What does that even mean in this context? And because it didn't set out to measure racial brain volume differences doesn't invalidate it as a source or its importance as a source which explicitly controls for age, gender and educational attainment, and uses modern technology which is free of human bias and measurement error to measure brain volume.

Your own author you cited also didn't find a brain volume IQ difference of 10% but 20%. Either you are innumerate, you didn't read your source or you are dishonest. The author you chose to cite calculates brain volume differences between Blacks and Whites account for a 20% differences in the IQ gap.

I find it funny your post is so much about Rushton when I never mentioned him. On the other hand, Nisbett has been discredited for cherry-picking his sources and lies of omission.

In your quotation of Nisbett he even admits the head start programs can only show Black IQ is supplemented only until the age of 15. That is not until early adulthood!

It's also funny you mention body size and brain volume because a study on 40,000 American school children showed Blacks are heavier and taller than Whites than Asians yet Asians had larger head size than Whites than Blacks.

The correlation of head size and height and weight was the opposite when it came to race.

Your arguments continue to be debunked yet you repeat them after a pause.

I cannot count the number of times on this forum you cited Nisbett on specific issues where he was shown to omit data.

Which brings me to the point that you flee whenever your citation of this writer is challenged.

 

You're still displaying a lack of understanding Tobias' argument. He didn't say that he controlled for all of these variables and made a measurement he said that the studies in question lacked these controls therefore their measurements are invalid. Do you understand the concepts of control and comparability?

You are presenting a source as the standard for evidence that there is a racial hierarchy in brain size when:

1. The bulk of the most recent scientific literature states that there is no racial hierarchy in brain size (see Lieberman's "Changing Racial Hierarchies" Chart).

2. The authors of the study do not share your conclusions.

3. The authors of the study state that the biological implications of their research are unclear.

Not only is this cherry-picking it's also misrepresentation of a source which is a tactic Rushton was notorious for.

Do you know how to read? Wicherts clearly said in the quote that I posted that the stated brain size differences Rushton reports can not explain any more than 9% (2.98 IQ points) of the Black-White IQ gap. That's why I said that it can not explain any more than 10% of the gap. I was being generous, I could have said 9%. Don't dodge my question. If the Black-White IQ gap is 80% determined by genes then how do you explain a brain size differential that can only account for 9% of the gap? Unless you have a problem with Wicherts' calculations you should concede that the brain size differences reported by Rushton are too small to be a significant causal factor in the genetic relationship that he reported. Ofcourse not only did Wicherts dispute the relevance of the measurement but the validity of it as well since Rushton's research was primarily based on outdated external and postmortem measurements of brain size rather than modern MRI scans. And yes I know you have your single cherry-picked study as your fall back reference but even accepting their measurements the brain size differences by race are just as statistically insignificant.

You are clearly parroting Rushton with your racial brain size hierarchy claims and have repeatedly used him as a source for these claims. You are are also constantly defending his research. You should at least have the integrity to admit that. If Nisbett has been discredited then you can make a thread similar to the one I made on Rushton, outline the major problems with his work and list sources that agree with you as I did with Rushton. In truth it is only internet racists like you and Mikemikev who insist that Nisbett has been discredited. The scientific community at large does not agree.

It's very close to early adulthood and Nisbett did make the point that this is as far as the studies go to chart progress. You ignored his point about intervention programs positively impacting college age Black students.

You're talking about this study?

• Broman, S. H., Nichols, P. L., Shaughnessy, P., & Kennedy, W. (1987). Retardation in young children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

This is a study that Graves used as an example of Rushton's blatant misrepresentation of research in his demolition of Rushton's evolutionary arguments.

This is what happens when you base your arguments on the research of a dishonest and discredited researcher.

Your arguments are the ones that have been debunked in this thread. You are peddling pseudoscience and a racist theory that was debunked decades ago.

That's ironic considering your repeated defense of Rushton who was known for misrepresenting studies, manipulating data and omitting studies from his research.

That's a lie and notice that I have not gone anywhere in this discussion.

 

3-points in IQ attributed to brain volume accounts for 20% in the gap. Do you know how to do simple math?

Your argument is even dumber than I last thought. If you have no evidence any of these variables in brain volume measurements disfavor Blacks over whites how are you coming to the conclusion blacks and whites have the same brain volume?

Graves and Tobias do not offer a coherent explanation as to how brain measurements favor Asians over whites. They have no evidence black brain volume is even disfavorably measured.

You also have not bothered to explain which of the 14 variables apply to the MRI study uncontrolled for.

As usual, your arguments are incoherent and factless.

You cannot reject data if you have no evidence to support rejecting the data.

 

I see that you're a fan of rounding up and selecting figures to fit your agenda. Wicherts was talking about the Black African vs. White European IQ gap (33 IQ points). You rounded up the number he got for brain volume's impact on IQ (2.98 points) and applied it to the Black American vs. White American IQ gap (15 points) which comes to about 19.8%. Even if we accept your rounded figure applied to the American Black-White IQ gap you still have not explained why the figure is no higher than 20% when the Black-White IQ gap is supposed to be 80% genetically determined. Maybe you don't agree with strong hereditarianism. Well we know that is not true. So what is your explanation for why Rushon's reported brain volume differences can not explain any more than a small percentage of the Black-White IQ gap?

All I am saying is that past studies that reported brain size differences between races are based on insufficient evidence. I believe that whatever brain volume differences exist between populations is negligible. I do find it interesting that not all studies on brain measurements fit the racialist view. Tobias found data showing that American Blacks had more estimated excess neurons than several White populations. What do you have to say about that?

The Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) study provides a plausible explanation. As I said variance in cranial capacity between populations is strongly correlated with latitude. The fact that past brain size studies did not control for variables that are proven to be relevant to accurate measurements invalidates the studies.

The authors of the study in question admit that they don't know the biological implications of their study because they don't know what factors are contributing to the results. So how can you be so confident in a study like this where the authors never express agreement with your views and never said that their brain size measurements confirm racial hierarchies based on genetic differences?

We do have evidence to support rejecting studies that did not control for variables.

By the way are you going to respond to Graves' criticism of Rushton's misrepresentation of research? You have been pimping the conclusions of Rushton's analysis of Broman et al. (1987) for awhile but clearly his analysis was garbage considering the fact that he manipulated data to suit his racist agenda. What do you have to say about that?

 

Since when have I claimed the IQ gap is entirely attributable to brain volume differences?

Great. After you go through every individual study and find where and how much it insufficiently address these 'variables' then you can modify them. Until you have evidence you have no ground to reject or modify these earlier studies.

This is why Graves, Tobias and Lieberman are clowns.

Beals does not have the evidence these variables differed significantly between Whites and Blacks.

He cannot reject or modify data until he has said evidence.

The study uses modern technology, controls for three critical variables, and finds Whites have larger brain volume than Blacks.

Your argument is a red herring. This study contradicts what you're trying to claim that studies do not find differences in Black and White brain volume.

That the authors do not speculate the cause of the difference is irrelevant.

Prove it or shut up.

You've proven to me Graves is a moron.

You can't even work out that data can't be rejected without evidence.

I'm not concerned with your opinion.

Work on showing every study ever conducted involving head, skull and brain size of Whites and Blacks is wrong.

 

You claim that racial IQ gaps are primarily caused by genetic differences and in that link even note that IQ is 80% heritable for adults. 20% isn't anywhere near a primary factor. So if you're not claiming that
brain volume differences represent the primary factor for genetic differences then what other factors are there?

Tobias reviewed the studies and stated that they do not control for the variables in question. That is valid evidence that the studies are unreliable.

I didn't say that he did. I was addressing your point about Asians supposedly having larger brain volume than Whites.

The conclusions of the study are relevant to this discussion. You can not take studies that do not support your argument and claim that they do. That's misrepresentation.

I already have.

You're dodging a response to his arguments. He clearly showed that Rushton manipulated the data of the study you referenced and misrepresented the research.

Why are you repeating this lie even though I showed you that the bulk of research in the last 50 years does not support racial hierarchies in brain size?

 

Where'd I claim brain volume differences are the primary factor? They appear to account for 20% of the IQ gap. We also know of gene frequency differences between Blacks and Whites linked to educational attainment that may or may not express brain volume. There is a mound of information to come from genetic and intelligence research that will discover more genes linked to IQ, their mechanism, and how how they express themselves. We'll determine if future intelligence genes are more frequent in Whites than in Blacks as current research has shown.

Lie. Tobias claimed without evidence because the studies supposedly did not control certain variables. Even if the studies did not control for certain variables, Tobias has no way of knowing if these variables negatively favored Blacks. He has no way of knowing whether Black post-mortem brain volume measurements were conducted later than White post-mortem brain measurements.

He has no basis to assume this to be the case - which he has - and he most definitely cannot reject or modify data based on what he doesn't know.

Every study in the 20th and 21st century has shown Northeast Asians to have larger head, skull or brain size than Whites.

The fact you, Graves, Tobias and Lieberman cannot offer a coherent explanation to the results for these numerous studies involving Asians and Whites speaks volumes.

I don't know which is worse; that you have not pondered why these studies show Northeast Asians have larger brain volume, or that you are unable to offer a coherent explanation.

The study's purpose wasn't to investigate whether Blacks and Whites had different brain volumes. The study controls for three critical variables, uses modern technology, and finds Whites have larger brain volume than Blacks.

Your response is a red herring. I don't care about the author's disclaimers. They provide the data and are not interested in making conclusions one way or another.

Their conclusions do not support your view anymore than they support mine. They took brain volume data on Blacks and Whites and reported their results: they found Whites have larger brain volume than Blacks.

It's obvious their results support your inability to grasp basic arguments.

What an incredible lie. Find a single study measuring Black and White head, skull or brain volume and *prove* Blacks were unfavorably tested.

Prove there was a gender imbalance favoring Whites against Blacks. Prove the Blacks in the study were malnourished. Prove post-mortem brain measurements were conducted later for Blacks than Whites.

After you go through the first study, you will go on to the next to prove that study's findings need to be modified.

Do this until you go through them all so you can reject/modify them on proof and not assumption as your clowns you cite have assumed.

Really? What was the data I cited that was 'misrepresented'?

You cannot cite a single study showing Whites and Blacks have the same head, skull and brain size.

You have not proven a single study unfavorably measures Black head, skull and brain size compared to Whites.

Your sources - Beals, Lieberman, etc., have themselves never proven these. They have never done any of their own studies.

They have no proof for their claims.

As such, no study in the last 50 years supports equal brain size between Blacks and Whites.

It is your claims without proof based on assumptions by people who never did work themselves conducting studies or have given proof allowing them to modify other studies.

Anyone claiming assumptions are proof has the intelligence of an ant.

 

Zzzz...

What I note with the political Left is that they legitimize and cherish everyone's identity except white people, whose identities they feel the need to go out of their way to delegitimize and deconstruct, typically by combining historical atrocity narratives with "artificial construct" rhetoric.

Other than that, what I'm seeing here is basically traditional Marxist views on race.

 

I'm a Libertarian. Not on then left, not even close