Next time I'm told by some "scientific" racist that he has evidence backing up his contention that certain races are inferior, I'm just going to tell him that there is one more experiment he has to do.
- Log in to post comments
Advertisment
Next time I'm told by some "scientific" racist that he has evidence backing up his contention that certain races are inferior, I'm just going to tell him that there is one more experiment he has to do.
Amen!!!
Don't forget to put your test subjects in polluted inner-city environments where they and their kids can get lead poisoning, among other things. Long-term lead exposure has been shown to zap IQ points.
Get James Watson to try this test lol.
Don't be ridiculous. Centuries of slavery, poverty, oppression, and lack of education are an easy hole to climb out of. It's not that they're unintelligent - it's just that they're not really trying.
Just kidding, I was imitating my stepmom.
Succinct and entertaining, PZ. Sometimes you hit the nail right on the on its pin-sized head.
I have no truck with racists, nor with those people who are blindly 'anti racist'.
To adopt the axiom that no race is inferior to others is a fine and civilised political or philosophical worldview, but to assume that there are no differences between people sharing different genetic clusters is just poor science. We know that there are geographically identifiable demes that are better fitted to their local environment (such as the inhabitants of the high altitude Tibetan plateau) than demes elsewhere.
The question is how to ensure that individuals are appreciated for their own qualities, and not for the average qualities of any particular genetic background.
'Hundreds of years' of slavery? Most African-American schoolchildren and twenty somethings have not lived under slavery or Jim Crow. [And African-Americans descended from more recent African immigrants also show low IQs.] So what's the non-genetic transmission mechanism? I can think of several:
1. People with lower IQ, education, and SES will be more likely to be unhealthy or abuse alcohol or drugs during pregnancy.
2. Ditto for poor nutrition, lack of breast-feeding, etc.
3. Poor intellectual-social stimulation from parents
My question then would be why do the children of African-American upper middle class families of college-educated professionals still show the gap vis a vis the median family in those circumstances, and a much larger gap relative to Jewish or Chinese families?
Also, I was struck by this recent article in Scientific American, which begins and ends by condemning the 'simplistic' argument of Larry Summers, but then goes on to make exactly the points Summers made in his talk!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sex-math-and-scientific-achievement
*looks askance at Puzzled*
I tend to agree with DiscoveredJoys here, and over at Sandwalk you can find Larry Moran saying the same thing whenever possible. But there may be good reasons to suspect that, whatever differences among human gene pools/"demes" persist, and whichever such differences are correlated with geographic variation in skin color and phenotypic details of head-hair and facial features, genes that influence "intelligence" should be less likely to vary among groups than other genes with observable phenotypic effect.
If enough of us try the Summon Greg Laden incantation, he will show up and explain.
It seems obvious to me that genetic differences could exist in the area of intelligence, I'm just not sure how to measure them. It seems easier for things like skin color and shoe size, but intelligence doesn't seem to offer a single scale I can discern.
Proving that individual examples don't follow statistical norms is as easy as comparing Neil DeGrasse Tyson with Paris Hilton.
I would just like to point out that there's nothing intrinsically unscientific about racist theories.
It seems conceivable to me that there could be a genuine, biological correlation with IQ test results. It begs the question, though, what's being measured?
Claiming that aptitude tests are inherently biased is nothing more than question begging. Where is the evidence for such a claim other than that the results don't match a desired world view?
This reminds me of the arguments theists make regarding the consequences of non-belief.
Do older silblings score higher on IQ tests than younger siblings?
Hmmm... didn't we do that experiment already, in Ireland, for about 700 years? Starvation, no education, attempt to destroy the culture and language, execute or expel the troublemakers, and so on?
bill r,
According to "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" Ireland has a mean IQ of 93.
Are any other white people besides myself experiencing the same lack of outrage at the fact East Asians seem to score better then us on IQ tests?
The thought that it may have some genetic component doesn't seem to perturb me very much.
Since someone referenced a Sciam article here is one from a few weeks ago.
The Choke Factor: How Stereotypes Affect Performance
http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300005419
Daoud
antihumanist #16:
Malcolm Gladwell addresses the East Asian IQ thing; he references the work of Flynn. (Scroll down; it's towards the bottom.) It appears that we East Asians do not have higher IQs as a whole when socioeconomic factors are taken into account.
My figurative god. Some of the comments at Salon are just ridiculous. Example:
So are we saying that environment can't affect genome? Here is a report proposing just that:
Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence
Jeffk,
"It seems conceivable to me that there could be a genuine, biological correlation with IQ test results"
'Conceivable' seems to be a bit of an understatement. We know from twin studies that genes matter enormously in determining IQ scores of people in all races. The controversial question (for historical and political reasons) is about racial differences.
I would just like to point out that there's nothing intrinsically unscientific about racist theories.
They are when there's no science involved.
Given the Flynn effect, I'm not entirely sure what it would mean for one race to be genetically inferior on IQ tests--is the average American now genetically superior to one two generations ago? Because the average American now would score something like 30 points higher on an IQ test than an average American two generations ago.
I found Watson's remarks quite puzzling, since he is a noted geneticist, and most genetically distinct subpopulations of humans all have black skin. Two arbitrary Africans are more genetically different (on average) than two arbitrary people anywhere else in the world. So if IQ is a genetically controlled quantity, then we would expect the smartest people and the dumbest people to be Africans.
I don't think we need to worry about this. According to my uncle (who is a devout, well studied chistian) all the inferior races like blacks will be healed when god comes again. They'll get white skin and be just as smart as white folk...as long as they gave their heart to jebus in time and acted like normal folk. Why are we wasting time on these sort of questions?
Scientific racism, like creationism, has had chance after chance after chance to provide sound, properly supported arguments to back up its claims and produced nothing that draws more than sighs and eyerolls from people who know anything about biology and are not already convinced of its claims. In expecting to be taken seriously now, after more than two centuries of confirmation bias and question-begging, it is, like creationism, the equivalent of a football team that's never won a game demanding a place at the superbowl.
Not this again. Didn't Orac just cover this?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/skepticism_and_the_scientific…
All you have to do is look around and study history and its clear that white people are genetically predisposed to feel superior to everyone else and oppress them. Right?
Claiming that aptitude tests are inherently biased is nothing more than question begging. Where is the evidence for such a claim other than that the results don't match a desired world view?
Well, there's the fact that many questions are based in cultural knowledge, so anyone not of that particular culture is at a disadvantage. There's the fact that IQ tests rely on particular types of questions, which favor people who are used to those kinds of questions. There's the fact that anyone can be coached to do better on said IQ tests. There's the fact that subsequent testing usually increases scores, indicating that familiarity with the test is a factor. There's the fact that entire industries exist solely to help people improve their scores on those kinds of tests, and their methods work. There's the fact that a lot of types of intelligence aren't shown on those tests at all.
What other kinds of evidence do you want?
What happened to the newer posts?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
"Well, there's the fact that many questions are based in cultural knowledge, so anyone not of that particular culture is at a disadvantage." - This is an old canard. Test-makers and psychometricians have manipulated the content of aptitude measures up and down the road.
"There's the fact that IQ tests rely on particular types of questions, which favor people who are used to those kinds of questions." What about matrix-type tests that present novel question scenarios?
"There's the fact that anyone can be coached to do better on said IQ tests." Are they? And can someone be coach in a reaction-time test?
And what do you mean by "a lot of types of intelligence"? This sounds like Gardnerian co-opting.
You know, there's always 2 ways to look at experiments, instead of breeding White you could instead breed Africans (not that I'm advocating it). It seems that the British have been breed for the merchant class before the Enlightenment, so that post-Enlightenment Britain was filled with "merchants". Maybe that's the cause of the discrepancy.
Actually, assuming the opposite would be poor science. According to the null hypothesis, there's no reason to believe that there are intrinsic genetic discrepancies in intelligence between the races (for however you choose to define "intelligence" and "the races") until proven otherwise. And we haven't proven otherwise.
....
Go read The Mismeasure of Man. We'll be here when you're done.
Also, I'd like to second what Azkyroth said at #25. People who bitch and moan about those evil liberals adopting an orthodoxy of all the races being exactly alike have no notion of history and seem to think that these issues arise in a vacuum (and apparently do so every other year). It was actually the standard theory to believe that blacks were inherently less intelligent than whites for scores of years. And guess what? After we began to learn new things, we found that the evidence didn't support that theory and so we rejected it. That's sound science. Stubbornly clinging to outdated, rejected theories and insisting that we answer your "gotcha" questions as though they're something new... well, that's what creationists do.
Well, yes and no. Here, I'll let Professor C.H. Dalton explain:
P.S., buy the book.
The biggest problems with the racist hypothesis that "black people" are a homogenous group that is on average significantly less intelligent than "white people" are A) the lack of a plausible mechanism - seriously, for you racists, what characteristics of "black people's" environment would you point to as evolutionary pressures (or lack thereof) that would produce lower intelligence? (By contrast, the environmental hypothesis for average "black" IQ scores has a well developed set of plausible mechanisms, all with significant degrees of evidential support, as I understand it). This becomes even more significant when we consider that the question in A is "wrong" - "black people" are not a homogenous group, and there is no one environment that can be pointed out as "theirs."
"Black people" as a group encompasses multiple populations historically located on three different continents. Even if we restrict ourselves to African "black people", as has been pointed out the range of genetic diversity within Africa dwarfs the average difference between any arbitrary African and a person from elsewhere. Similarly, the range of environments and societies found within Africa is enormous, from the Sahara to the jungles to the grasslands. What hypothetical selective pressures, in such a situation, would produce a lower innate intelligence in all these genetically distinct populations, in all these different habitats, relative to those of Europeans and East Asians? What challenges would these other groups have had to meet that would explain this?
The least implausible mechanism for an inherently lower intelligence in American descendents of Africans would be artificial selection during the slavery era. Even this, however, is highly problematic, for various reasons including the likely difficulty of carrying out such intelligence assessments on an uneducated population in such horrible living conditions, as well as other factors. However, it fails as an explanation of the social and behavioral characteristics of black Americans today.
Logically, we would expect that if slaves had been selectively bred for behavioral qualities they would first and foremost be a disposition to hard work and lack of aggressiveness. Yet today a highly disproportionate number of black Americans live in poverty, the unemployment rate for black Americans is much higher than for white Americans, etc. Similarly, the violent crime rate for young black men in particular is, as I understand it, substantially higher than for white Americans as a whole. If we consider this state of affairs as a product of socioeconomic and cultural factors - all the problems of poverty coupled to discrimination and oppression historically crushing and, though driven underground by changing social attitudes, continuing to this day, and the resistance and resentment it inspires - it is explicable, yet if we use "selective breeding" to explain the supposed lower intelligence of black people we must assume that slaveowners selectively bred dumb, lazy, aggressive slaves. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Racism is like intelligent design: scientists have NOT rejected it out of hand; indeed, racist hypotheses have been accepted with an uncommon hospitality for most of the history of science. They invariably fail to explain the facts better than hypotheses focusing on social and economic factors, and frequently fail to explain the facts at all. They are useless, failed models that can safely, and should, be discarded, and the only reason for their persistence is their appeal to certain people for irrational and purely personal reasons, whether in the form of a formal ideology or simply as personal sentiment. And because these ideologues are unwilling to abandon their prejudices, they pretend that science is simply rejecting their good argument due to ideological biases, in a classic and pathetic example of projection and desperation.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in a discussion I found on Richard Dawkins site, claims that "white guilt" is a one sided moral responsibility that has excluded other groups from sharing in these consequences. [paraphrased by me]. She is using this analogy to explain why "inshallah" among moslem populations has prevented their advancement.
IMHO, its largely a "nurture" problem not a "nature" one.
SG
Antihumanist @ # 16, You ask, "Are any other white people besides myself experiencing the same lack of outrage at the fact East Asians seem to score better then us on IQ tests? The thought that it may have some genetic component doesn't seem to perturb me very much."
I'm with you on that. It seems obvious that, as IQ is significantly heritable (according to twin studies), there will develop significant average IQ differences between groups. Evolution due to group-level selection, along with genetic drift, due to the founder effect, will ensure that such differences inevitably occur wherever the groups exist in differing physical & cultural environments.
Sure, clearly what happens to people matters. But, is it *scientifically* necessary that every group have the exact same potential for intelligence? I want the answer to be yes, but does it *have* to be?
Two words: stereotype threat.
puzzled wrote:
Had you used IQ tests from earlier in the 20th century, the Jewish and Chinese IQ scores would have been right near the bottom. This was a matter of no mere academic import. It was used to restrict immigration quotas for Jews and other "undesirables," and helped ensure that thousands could not come to the U.S. to escape Nazism's growing popularity and power.
Cool so as soon as we can get test results for identical twins where one twin's light-skinned and the other's dark-skinned, we'll be able to control for the effects of bigotry. Oh, wait....
But, is it *scientifically* necessary that every group have the exact same potential for intelligence?
What on Earth is "potential for intelligence" supposed to be?
I suppose it means, what their IQs would turn out to be if raised in equivalent environments. Sure IQ is slippery, but some creatures are clearly intrinsically more intelligent than others. The question is, does that hold up when the purported difference is small/sublte? I don't know, I'm just asking - instead of being frightened, some good answers would be better, tx.
They left out an important counfounding factor. Many black female slaves were raped by their white slave owners and many children were so conceived. If we assume a few percent per generation, then in 20 generations, virtually every descendent of those slaves will have as an ancestor a white slave owner who procreated via rape with his slaves, presumably because a free woman wouldn't have him.
That could be how the African American genome was infiltrated with undesirable genes (if such genes are in fact present).
As researchers are always concerned about time and money expenditure of such an ambitious project, I'd recommend the target population adopt the Black Like Me research method. The design should be preferably longitudinal and starting at conception.
I'd participate myself but would be a confounding variable given my already non-melanin-challenged status.
Thanks, Puzzled
Well, that explains a bit. And here I thought it was just a case of too much to drink....
I'm telling you people: IQ tests measure the degree to which someone is incompetent. Scores over about 80 or 90 are lumped together in a category for those "able to function." Below those scores, people may start having problems functioning (be it for social, intellectual, or other reasons). However, it isn't until 70 that there are possible quality of life issues. IQ tests are most powerful near the boundary of incompetency and not powerful in the more extreme areas (for example, a person with a high IQ may be too lazy to participate more than minimally - an IQ test does not accurately predict a lazy man's ability to contribute.)
Because IQ test results can vary greatly based on culture, variance of intra-racial IQ test result scores may be a more powerful indicator of relative inter-racial correlation of intelligence. Meaning can be added to the variance if we compare the per capita population that is too incompetent to function in society (thus establishing a base line around an IQ of 65-70 rather than 100-110).
The real issue comes from familial and societal emphasis in subcultures, nothing more extravagent. *On average*, a black person in the US will tend to live in a family/neighborhood with less emphasis on education, and this shows up in both these mean IQ scores and in crime rates. It also happens to show up in groups that are "new immigrants", which is why Irish were notorious for their criminals, and why (comparativley recently) the so-called Latino gangs have been touted as another problem. Most groups "grow" out of this collective phase in a 1-3 generations.
However, the idea that IQ tests are racist and that it matters who designs them is a load of crap. Whether you're black, purple, simian, porcine, aquatic, or terrestrial, 2+2=4 and Sally's mom who is twice as old as Sally was three years ago has the same age.
The responsibility we do have is to tell people what a potential problem source is. It is up to them to fix it, and if I'm in a rut, I expect no more and no less, thank you.
(Finally, before I get flamed for racism here, I would like to note that I really don't care what your skin pigmentation or geographical birth location is. I am an equal-opportunity provider, in a sense -- I'll tell you the exact same thing. I also am not white, myself, but I find affirmative action and such abhorrent, and will only mark "decline to state" on anything requesting race. I expect everyone, myself included, to succeed or fail based solely on your own merits -- and if you fail, try again harder this time.)
'Proving that individual examples don't follow statistical norms is as easy as comparing Neil DeGrasse Tyson with Paris Hilton.'
If she hangs around her eponym long enough, maybe she'll run into one of M.l'Admiral de Grasse's numerous descendants, settle down and have a statistically unremarkable family.
This doesn't follow. Ethnic groups are far from homogenous, and "black people" are farther from homogenous than most.
Three points.
1) Can you define any of the highlighted terms for me? I'm quite positive you're using "group-level selection" incorrectly, and the other two look suspicious.
2) What differences in physical environments are there between the total range of those inhabited by "black people" and those inhabited by "Asians" and "Europeans" that you consider plausible candidates for causes of differences in intelligence?
3) Cultural differences contributing to genetic evolution? HTF do you figure that? You are aware that Lamarckism has been discredited, right?
I was once, fairly briefly, a member of Mensa. (My defence is that I was very immature and insecure at the time.) This organisation contained some of the silliest and most useless human beings I've ever encountered. IQ tests themselves are fun but really a waste of time. They simply measure the ability to do certain kinds of largely meaningless puzzles and somehow this is called "intelligence". Bullshit.
tigerhawkvok #44:
IQ tests don't ask about Sally's mom or arithmetic. They ask questions like "What would you do if you found a wallet in a store at the mall?" and "What would you do if a little kid started picking a fight with you?"
J: as I recall that was only part of the tests I've taken.
Azkyroth: True. The last IQ test I took was the WISC-IV. At least twenty minutes of the test were devoted to these strange questions about morality. I remember trying to divine the "correct" answer and wondering what any of it had to do with intelligence. These kinds of questions disadvantage test-takers from non-Western backgrounds. Even though other parts of the test are unrelated to morality, I wonder how much of my IQ is due to my successful assimilation into American culture and adoption of Western values.
To be a devil's advocate here, based on the very iffy assumption that the IQ evidence is not entirely artifactual (is that a word?), one might propose that cultures that have been more technologically complex for a decent number of generations (as Europe and East Asia have been) could select for a certain type of intelligence, possibly more adept at mathematics, with enough force to shift the mean of these tests. It doesn't seem all that likely, but it's plausible.
But using the premise to generate a testable prediction: how do polynesians fare on these tests? They would descend from founder groups with a good fraction who had a significant ability to use technology and apply it in ways that seem to have been mathematically complicated; navigating without instruments and then establishing a society on a brand-new island seem like things that would also favor the sort of intelligence we're talking about.
I remember something about black folks in Jamaica getting good IQ scores, a bit over 100 on average IIRC. Also, that blacks in "British" cultures (like Jamaica, but also UK itself) do much better than American counterparts. Anyone remember that, or have any comments? I think most people leave out some subtle "orienting" effect, like whether one wants to be "athletic" or not - and this may be much affected by how a culture stimulates one's self expression, as to be "fashionably dumb" versus smart. Also, some conservatives picking on schooling/liberals etc. say that blacks did very well pack in the late 18th c etc. - well, aside from questioning the motives of those commenters, I think perusing essays etc. from those cases in the past show a high level of fluency, grammar, etc. Finally, I recall that grad students from Africa were more often in top placement than American blacks at HU where I worked, "despite" having more pure African ancestry. It is a complicated affair, and one's "stance" about intellectuality as it were is the most neglected matter.
Can the people who want to bravely entertain the politically incorrect idea of genetically determined cognitive differences between races please just do me a teeny favor? Please define- in purely biological terms now, no fair sneaking in culture- "race". And then tell me exactly how many races we should recognize in H. sapiens. (For a little history-of-science extra credit, please estimate the number of different racial classifications that anthropologists have come up with over the years.)
Jud @37: "Had you used IQ tests from earlier in the 20th century, the Jewish and Chinese IQ scores would have been right near the bottom. This was a matter of no mere academic import. It was used to restrict immigration quotas for Jews and other "undesirables," and helped ensure that thousands could not come to the U.S. to escape Nazism's growing popularity and power."
I seem to recall reading (long ago) that around the turn of the 20th Century, Columbia University started using intelligence tests for prospective students. This was purportedly done to keep out Jews, since it was theorized that they wouldn't do as well as Good White Xian folk. Imagine their surprise when the Jews did better on these tests, as a whole, than the Good White Xians. This could, of course, be an urban myth (I don't even recall where I read it, let alone have a source), but if not, it's a great bit of karma and unexpected consequences.
To adopt the axiom that no race is inferior to others is a fine and civilised political or philosophical worldview, but to assume that there are no differences between people sharing different genetic clusters is just poor science.
Nowhere in PZ's post was such an assumption made.
Racists are unable to appreciate the evidence of racism that their own behavior presents.
No, PZ, let's not be dishonest about this. Obviously a knockdown argument against "scientific racism" isn't so easily had. (It's kind of slippery of you to call this "racism", by the way.) Enslaving people and monitoring their progression isn't necessarily the only illuminating experiment that could be done. This oversimplification is almost as bad as the creationist canard that we can't observe "macroevolution", therefore it didn't occur.
I'm not trying to defend the views of the Watson crowd, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss them with these clearly politically-motivated, childishly simple arguments. Maybe Jared Diamond is right and aboriginal Australians are, if differences exist, somewhat more intelligent than white Europeans. Maybe even looking at the intellectual differences between races isn't a good idea in the first place. However, we can't know any of this until we actually discuss the matter sensibly. Many scientists are far too eager to simply say what's politically correct (regardless of its justification) and gain the applause of their mainly leftist readership.
I would just like to point out that there's nothing intrinsically unscientific about racist theories.
The cartoon spells out one of the ways in which they are intrinsically unscientific.
No, it doesn't. It's an asinine oversimplification. Let's be honest about this; these theories are quite obviously not "intrinsically unscientific". They're either wrong or right.
I am at a loss as to this experiment. At face value, it seems to be a Lamarkian type conclusion, or, if it is a Darwinian conclusion, then the generations were selected for "dumb" and "docile". I get the intended message, but I suspect the difference is cultural. Poor Charles D, blamed for everything. Don't let the Coultergeist get wind of this!
Sure IQ is slippery, but some creatures are clearly intrinsically more intelligent than others.
Blacks and whites aren't creatures, they are (largely socially defined -- what is Obama?) groups, and the statistical characteristics of groups don't attach to individuals.
I could put forth the hypothesis that, as a group, proponents of race-based genetic IQ difference have statistically worse understanding of statistical concepts than non-proponents, and I daresay that I could present arguments for the hypothesis at least as strong as the arguments for race-based genetic IQ differences.
As the physicist Pauli famously pointed out, there's a third alternative (one which fits this case)- "not even wrong". Which is to say, unscientific.
Simply stunned at the number of racists posting comments. My guess is that a lot of creationist trolls have finally found a thread on which they think they can make intelligent contributions. I have no other explanation.
"The cartoon spells out one of the ways in which they are intrinsically unscientific."
No, it doesn't.
If you don't think so then you're stupid. And I say that as someone who scores 4 SD above the norm on IQ tests. They are intrinsically unscientific because they are full of methodological error.
Let's be honest about this; these theories are quite obviously not "intrinsically unscientific". They're either wrong or right.
You clearly know nothing of science or the nature of scientific theory. Is Intelligent Design either wrong or right ... or is it intrinsically unscientific? Is the theory of evolution either wrong or right ... or is it neither, rather being an explanatory framework for a set of observed phenomena?
No, it's not unscientific at all. Ruling out non-supernatural scientific hypotheses on these epistemological grounds is almost always a sign of desperate defence of a creed. (See how the God squad resort to this devious trick when it comes to theories of consciousness, cosmology, and the origin of life.)
THANK YOU!
On the other hand, ruling out propositions that are not well-formed enough to be viable scientific hypotheses- that is, that are not even wrong- is good science.
"Methodological error"? What?
Oh, I would say that ID make many (utterly ludicrous) scientific claims. Except the "God planted the evidence to fool us" brand of ID, which I agree is unscientific.
By any convenient definition of intelligence, we are descended from creatures that were undoubtedly less intelligent than we are. You just have to go back far enough. Therefore, there must have been some variation in intelligence. Maybe the variation doesn't currently exist, but what I just said does show that in principle the variation can exist.
Ruling out non-supernatural scientific hypotheses on these epistemological grounds is almost always a sign of desperate defence of a creed.
No, it is such ad hominems that are a sign of desperation -- like "Many scientists are far too eager to simply say what's politically correct (regardless of its justification) and gain the applause of their mainly leftist readership".
There is no "scientific hypothesis" that has been ruled out on "epistemological grounds". The cartoon rules out nothing; it just gives an indication of the burden that that must be born by those who make extraordinary claims. And the claim of race-based genetic IQ differences is quite extraordinary in light of strong cultural differences and the fact that race is not a biological category. So quitcher stupid lying.
"Methodological error"? What?
Did I say stupid?
Oh, I would say that ID make many (utterly ludicrous) scientific claims. Except the "God planted the evidence to fool us" brand of ID, which I agree is unscientific.
Regardless of what an ignorant git like you would say, ID is unfalsifiable and thus is not a scientific theory. And "ID" doesn't make scientific claims -- that's a category error. Various proponents of ID make empirical claims, some more ludicrous than others.
By any convenient definition of intelligence, we are descended from creatures that were undoubtedly less intelligent than we are. You just have to go back far enough. Therefore, there must have been some variation in intelligence. Maybe the variation doesn't currently exist, but what I just said does show that in principle the variation can exist.
Did I say stupid? Do you suppose that races are monophyletic groups?
Ad hominems? Coming from someone who just called me stupid and ignorant of science? What shameless double standards.
Saying that a hypothesis is "intrinsically unscientific" seems pretty epistemological to me. You seem to have backtracked on that; now you're on about "burden that must be born".
I disagree that it is an extraordinary claim. I think it would be pretty extraordinary if there are no intelligence differences between numerous groups that were independently evolving for thousands of years. I agree that race is a fuzzy and quite arbitrary concept, though this doesn't affect what I said. Popular conceptions of race would be good enough for our purposes.
He didn't say it wasn't, dumbass. He said the hypothesis being ruled out was was being ruled out precisely on the epistemological grounds that it was not a scientific hypothesis. It's a hoot to watch somebody who's too stupid to read accurately attempting to discuss intelligence measurements. My irony meter is enjoying the workout.
Here you go calling me ignorant again. Talk about ad hominems. I think ID isn't unfalsifiable unless it retreats into "God/Satan planted the evidence to trick us", or some other cowardly position. That an intelligent being created all life 6,000 years ago is an empirical claim. This is a perfectly reasonable point, and there's nothing ignorant about it.
Hypotheses about "race" are and will remain unscientific until you can define in scientific terms just what a "race" is and how to correctly classify our species into biological races. Care to have a go?
Yes, and that was exactly my point. He was ruling out a hypothesis on epistemological grounds, and then he was denying this. Learn how to read.
Learn to recognize scare quotes, like the ones he used around "scientific hypothesis".
Dumbass.
Ad hominems? Coming from someone who just called me stupid and ignorant of science? What shameless double standards.
You're too stupid and ignorant to know what an ad hominem is. I haven't argued that you're wrong because you're stupid -- that would be an ad hominem argument, moron. I call you stupid and ignorant because you display stupidity and ignorance.
Saying that a hypothesis is "intrinsically unscientific"
What I said was the theory was intrinsically unscientific -- did you miss the part where I pointed out that you don't understand what a scientific theory is? The cartoon points out that the methodology employed by racists is poor; the point is that the argumentation and evidence they gather in support of their hypothesis is selectively chosen.
I think ID isn't unfalsifiable unless it retreats into "God/Satan planted the evidence to trick us", or some other cowardly position. That an intelligent being created all life 6,000 years ago is an empirical claim.
So you don't know the difference between ID and YEC? What a dumb fuck.
He was ruling out a hypothesis on epistemological grounds, and then he was denying this. Learn how to read.
Please provide a quote supporting the claim that I ruled out any hypothesis. As for "epistemological grounds", I have to wonder if you know what the word means.
So, you want to study the biological relationship between race and intelligence, but you balk at defining race biologically. What utter nonsense.
You're the dumbass here. I think it was quite evident from his post that he was denying ruling anything out on epistemological grounds (though maybe he'll again change his mind post hoc). And even if he wasn't, what I wrote was still perfectly valid. The original point I made was that epistemological dismissals are often dubious.
Learn to recognize scare quotes, like the ones he used around "scientific hypothesis".
Those weren't scare quotes; I was actually quoting Jamie (except that he wrote it in the plural). He wrote "Ruling out non-supernatural scientific hypotheses on these epistemological grounds is almost always a sign of desperate defence of a creed." I noted that it's a false charge -- nothing has been ruled out. Now he claims I ruled them out -- apparently he takes "nothing was ruled out" to mean "I rule it out". A large part of the problem is that he has no grasp of what a theory is, that a theory, unlike a hypothesis, is not a fact claim. It is theories that can be unscientific and suffer from methodological error; hypotheses are, if well-defined, either true or false. Of course, no well-defined hypothesis has been offered here.
though maybe he'll again change his mind post hoc
I haven't changed my mind at all, you stupid lying sack of shit. I never said that any hypothesis was ruled out, on any grounds. What I said was that racist theories -- that's the word you used, you ignorant git -- are unscientific and suffer from methodological error.
Precisely. Nor can any biological hypothesis containing the biologically dubious term "race" BE well-defined. That's the point Jamie refuses to grasp. He'd rather stick his fingers in his ears and hum.
And I didn't launch an ad hominem either. I said that you were making an epistemological claim, and (I said) those are often dubious. Defending this is really getting tiresome now, as it was only a small point to begin with.
As for stupidity and ignorance: I could easily accuse you of the same thing, as I'll do now. And I'll throw in "illogical", "fanatical" and "applause-seeking" while I'm at it.
The cartoon is worthless. It high-handedly presents a childish non-argument as if it is definitive. It doesn't point out that "the methodology employed by racists is poor"; there's nothing of moment to be learned from it.
I disagree that it is an extraordinary claim. I think it would be pretty extraordinary if there are no intelligence differences between numerous groups that were independently evolving for thousands of years. I agree that race is a fuzzy and quite arbitrary concept, though this doesn't affect what I said. Popular conceptions of race would be good enough for our purposes.
And what purposes could those be, other than racist ones? How could there be a genetic component that explains the difference between groups that aren't defined genetically? I asked you if you think races are monophyletic ... do you have any idea what that means or why it matters?
You're posting on an evolutionary biology blog about a topic in evolutionary biology yet you clearly have no grasp of the relevant concepts. Which makes you not only stupid and ignorant, but arrogant as well.
What possible scientific significance would there be
And I didn't launch an ad hominem either.
Of course you did, you stupid fucking liar; I quoted them:
and
People like you make me puke.
OK, I haven't the time for this bullshit. I think what I initially alluded to has been confirmed. We're seeing a hysterical reaction to the mere suggestion that we should have a reasonable discourse without letting our leftist ideologies (which I also possess) interfere with our judgement.
This Truth Machine character is truly pathetic. I've seen him at it many times, instigating the most hateful witch hunts against anyone who risks a politically incorrect remark. I hope the regulars here don't allow themselves to be fooled by this shameless, vitriolic applause-seeker and his ilk.
The cartoon is worthless. It high-handedly presents a childish non-argument as if it is definitive. It doesn't point out that "the methodology employed by racists is poor"; there's nothing of moment to be learned from it.
Jamie's bottom line: Jamie understands science, the scientific method, and the biology of race, and PZ doesn't.
I don't like being called a liar, so I'll clear up some of Truth Machine's typically dishonest and misrepresentative mess before I leave. The position I espoused did not depend on those two sentences he quoted. I am not guilty of ad hominems in the sense he was using (and yes, it has multple definitions). As for who out of us depended more on personal attacks -- well, I think that's self-evident.
This Truth Machine character is truly pathetic. I've seen him at it many times, instigating the most hateful witch hunts against anyone who risks a politically incorrect remark. I hope the regulars here don't allow themselves to be fooled by this shameless, vitriolic applause-seeker and his ilk.
Did I say ad hominem? Bottom line: Jamie has no counter to my arguments. He can't say what "monophyletic" means or why it matters, he can't define race biologically, he can't tell the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, or understand which are true or false and which are subject to methodological error, he doesn't know what an ad hominem is ... he claims I changed my mind about whether some hypothesis is ruled out but can't quote me ruling it out ... all he can do is whine about my "vitriol", which he has well deserved.
I don't like being called a liar, so I'll clear up some of Truth Machine's typically dishonest and misrepresentative mess before I leave. The position I espoused did not depend on those two sentences he quoted.
I can't imagine how this git thinks this strawman shows he's not a liar. The quotes are text book ad hominem arguments.
No, I didn't say that PZ doesn't understand science. This is just one small issue where I seem to disagree with him. Now I've had enough of your sliminess.
We're seeing a hysterical reaction to the mere suggestion that we should have a reasonable discourse without letting our leftist ideologies (which I also possess) interfere with our judgement.
This is what Jamies calls "reasonable discourse", from his first post here:
"No, PZ, let's not be dishonest about this.... This oversimplification is almost as bad as the creationist canard that we can't observe "macroevolution", therefore it didn't occur.... I don't think it's fair to dismiss them with these clearly politically-motivated, childishly simple arguments.... Many scientists are far too eager to simply say what's politically correct (regardless of its justification) and gain the applause of their mainly leftist readership."
What's lacking is any comprehension of or rebuttal of the point PZ made ... that the assertion that some races have genetically inferior IQ relative to others... the evidence for which is statistical differences in performance ... can only be made if environmental differences that might account for those differences has been controlled for. That's basic science.
No, I didn't say that PZ doesn't understand science. This is just one small issue where I seem to disagree with him.
You boldly assertassert that his cartoon is worthless, that it high-handedly presents a childish non-argument as if it is definitive, that it doesn't point out anything about racist methodology, that there's nothing of moment to be learned from it. I suggest that the reason you assert this is that you don't understand science, the scientific method, or the biology of race, but in your arrogance you don't consider your ignorance to be any reason why you might be mistaken.
PZ, let's not be dishonest about this.... This oversimplification is almost as bad as the creationist canard that we can't observe 电炉
电磁流量计
填料
接近开关
除尘器
袋式除尘器"macroevolution", therefore it didn't occur.... I don't think it's fair to dismiss them with these clearly .
applause-seeker
I really have to wonder what this lying moron is smoking. The closest I get to applause here is "TM may be a jerk, but he's right sometimes".
What you don't seem to get is that there is an illogical leap from "individuals vary in intelligence" to "large, highly genetically homogenous groups with only a few common features of superficial appearance uniting them (really, one feature: skin color) will vary in average intelligence in a fashion that conforms to traditional Western cultural prejudices." Please support that fucking leap or shut the fuck up. That goes for all of the Scientific Racism Apologists here.
Captain C wrote:
Sadly, that's not what occurred. Jews were doing well on the New York Regents exams, which attempted to measure how well students had learned the material they had been taught in school. In an effort to come up with tests that would keep such undesirables out, Columbia instituted aptitude tests as a requirement. These had the signal advantage of not being intended to measure anything as objective as achievement in learning, but rather some squishy notion of "aptitude" or "intelligence." Quoting Herbert Hawkes, Columbia dean, in 1918: "We have honestly attempted to eliminate the lowest grade of applicant and it turns out that a good many of the low grade men are New York City Jews. It is a fact that boys of foreign parentage who have no background in many cases attempt to educate themselves beyond their intelligence."
Such is the heritage of modern IQ tests.
Actually, I'd go so far as to say "despite the epic abrasiveness of his habitual tone, TM almost invariably offers sound, well-reasoned arguments in support of positions on empirical matters."
Not really. There haven't been that many generations since the Europeans and East Asians became technologically superior to most other cultures (an upper limit would be around 200 generations) and it's only been within the last several centuries that more advanced technology has been accessible to the majority of citizens of those countries. Greater technical aptitude does not appear to have conveyed enough of a reproductive advantage to actually cause a significant change in average intelligence over such a short time scale.
For the folks who have lamented that attempts to get at good scientific evidence are suppressed for reasons of political correctness: The self-same data shows high school kids in 1980 were considerably less intelligent than high school kids in 1972. See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html
OK, people, no political incorrectness attached to comparisons of the '72 crop to the '80 kids, so let's see your genetic explanation for this difference over an 8-year span.
What you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge is that this discourse has been had, many times, and the racists have never been able to show the kind of evidence their claims would demand, resolve any of the scientific objections that have been raised, or even take the first fucking step of developing a biological definition of race.
Let me say this again, to make sure there is no chance of honest misunderstanding:
THE RACISTS HAD THEIR CHANCE TO PRODUCE SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THEIR POSITIONS, AND THEY BLEW IT.
(This is a slight oversimplification, namely in the use of the singular.)
Also, liar.
The "scientific" racist's reason for being a "scientific" racist, in a nutshell:
Benchley, R. My Ten Years in a Quandary and How they Grew, 1936
Argh. At #96, I meant "heterogenous groups." x.x
It seems to me there are several relevant questions
1) To what extent does a societal stereotype affect the performance of of visibly identifiable groups? ie does the stereotype of black people negatively affect the IQ of black people raised in healthy environments? Even differences even between adopted black vs half-black children unaware of their heritage are explainable if differences in the tone of the skin colour affect the degree to which they feel attached to the negative stereotype.
2) Is there a selective pressure that would cause the IQs of black people from Africa to be different from other groups? Since there is a very significant genetic variation among "black" people the only thing I can think of is a selective pressure applied to other populations that was absent in Africa. Most likely a longer technological history for European, Asian, and Arabic populations, and the forcing of intellectual professions on Jewish populations, resulting in a selective pressure driving those groups IQs up. Also very relevant did some African populations, nearer to Arab lands, have a similar technological heritage to their Arab neighbours? If these black populations exist do they test better?
3) On what portions of IQ tests do black people test worse? Linguistically? Mathematically? I believe the Flynn affect is supposed to mostly confined to questions relating to abstract reasoning and I wouldn't be surprised if inter-racial differences were confined to a similar, possibly informative, sub-section of IQ.
4) Do black populations in different societies test differently suggesting a social basis for the gap? (note you have to be careful that those populations don't have a selection bias like escaped slaves).
5) In countries where one related group was given dominance over another are there IQ differences? It was mentioned the Irish test lower than people in England, Tutsis were enjoyed significantly better status than Hutus for a very long time in Rwanda, the presence/absence of a Tutsi-Hutu IQ gap could offer significant evidence either way.
I don't know the answers to a lot of these questions, but the answers I do know lead me to the following beliefs.
1) There's no reason to believe that selective pressures on non-African populations couldn't have increased the average IQ in those groups.
2) There's no reason to believe that selective pressures DID cause non-Africans to gain a higher IQ (lots of things are possible, not all of them happen).
3) Significant societal factors exist that could explain the IQ gap. In absence of evidence to the contrary I believe they DO explain the IQ gap.
Sorry, but I don't buy this axiom you're trying to set down, whereby I have to prove that there are statistically significant intellectual differences between people of different skin colour before even mentioning the possibility that there are. For what it's worth, I think that once humans have the necessary faculties for processing memories and language, intelligence is then overwhelmingly a product of all the memes imbibed from the environment. But there is considerable debate to be had.
My original point was that we should have a reasonable discourse on this subject. Let's not accept any just old argument against "scientific racism". I think the cartoon that PZ showed us is superficial and guilty of misleading oversimplification. Those who disagreed should have debated this calmly, instead of resorting to misrepresentation and calling me a "sack of shit" and so on.
And no, Truth Machine, I have no interest in continuing this scuffle. Don't you have anything better to do but tenaciously hunt witches of your own making in politically-themed threads?
You have still failed to point out a biological definition of race. You're still failing the science. You want to cling so hard to that social definition that you will gladly conflate it with a biological one. Keep waving those hands so you can continue the nonsense.
Perhaps Larry Moran and PZ Myers could have an online debate on this topic.
Eric Turkheimer, 'Race and IQ,' Cato Unbound, 11/21/07:
"If the question of African IQ is a matter of empirical science, exactly what piece of evidence are we waiting for? What would finally convince the racialists that they are wrong? Nothing, it seems to me, except the arrival of the day when the IQ gap disappears, and that is going to take a while. The history of Africans in the modern West is roughly as follows: Millennia of minding their own business in Africa, followed by 200 years of enslavement by a foreign civilization, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow oppression, followed by fifty years of very incomplete equality and freedom. And now the scientific establishment, apparently even the progressive scientific establishment, is impatient enough with Africans' social development that it seems reasonable to ask whether the problem is in the descendants of our former slaves' genes."
That would be a reasonable hypothesis if the different skin colors correlated reasonably well with other characteristics. They don't.
"Black people" are not a singular group except in how a given society treats them. The only plausible way for the group-level variation you're willing to posit to exist is for intelligence to either be directly controlled by the same set of genes that determine melanin concentration, or by an incredible coincidence. No evidence of either has ever been produced.
It's been had. The results are the consensus you're saying we should throw out and start over with because a few people reject it for ideological reasons. As with Creationists, we'll be happy to have a discourse with scientific racists as soon as they come up with some scientifically sound evidence to discuss.
Culture is a huge motivator for intellectual performance. American Black Culture needs to get its head out of it's ass and quite being so lazy and excuse making. If South Korea could build a country from rubble and shit for tools after the Korean War, then American Black Culture can get it's head out of it's ass. It is a matter of desire. Which do you desire more: "Snoop Dog, blunts, and hoe's", or "growing up and getting smarter"?
Which do you desire more: "Snoop Dog, blunts, and hoe's", or "growing up and getting smarter"?
Hmm, I thought white kids were the most lucrative audience for hip hop, and I'll be sure to tell my black students to stop listening to hip hop and concentrate on their studies. Oh wait, they're at an elite institution already, so I guess they've done, and are continuing to do, their studying.
Fool, they're ain't no single black culture.
Read some Kozol. Some McLeod. And ask yourself, how much money did we sink into South Korea versus toward schools and social services serving primarily poor black folks.
Racist.
You do realize that "black culture" doesn't just mean the 13-25 range, right?
Didn't think so.
I think it's true that there is an undercurrent of anti-intellectualism and hostility towards things, including education and professional-type jobs, that are perceived as "white", in many circles of black youth culture, but this is derived from my observations of being a nerdy white kid in a racially diverse school and subsequent observations of the behavior of certain of my college classmates, not rigorous research methodologies. I think it's important to realize, however, that this is a learned response to the realities of poverty past and present, and the modern reality of racism combined with cultural memories from a time when racism was far more virulent than it is today, which you, unfortunately, seem to have forgotten.
As for the South Koreans, your example fails to address the combination of economic poverty and differential societal oppression on the basis of skin color (rather than just poverty). If the South Koreans had built up their present economy and society as a minority in a society that aggressively stacked the deck against them, refused to pay them equally even after it was made illegal, and treated them all as potential criminals, you might have a case.
Additionally, a man who forms plurals with apostrophes probably shouldn't be advising others to focus on "growing up and getting smarter."
Which do you desire more: "Snoop Dog, blunts, and hoe's", or "growing up and getting smarter"?
Dear joncaminiti,
I would love to hear (or read in this comment thread, I suppose) what evidence you have to suggest that "Snoop Dog, blunts, and hoe's" are the primary characteristics of black culture in America. I mean evidence other than your own racist perceptions, of course. I would also love to hear what evidence you have to suggest that all blacks, most blacks, or even some blacks prefer "Snoop Dog, blunts, and hoe's" to "growing up and getting smarter."
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Jesus Christ, why does every thread about intelligence devolve into a morass of racist crap?
Jamie:
Sorry, but I don't buy this axiom you're trying to set down, whereby I have to prove that there is evidence that Jamie has sexual congress with dogs before even mentioning the possibility that he/she is.
Sorry, but I don't buy this axiom you're trying to set down, whereby I have to prove that there is evidence that fairies cause sunsets before even mentioning the possibility that they do.
Sorry, but I don't buy this axiom you're trying to set down, whereby I have to prove that Keira Knightly is so into me before even mentioning the possibility that she is.
Hey, "science" is way more fun this way!
I've taken a number of IQ tests and I've never encountered a question remotely like that.
What I find interesting is that the comic didn't even challenge the the black/white gap, a premise that's technically racist whether it's supported by evidence or not.
Azkyroth: Are you seriously suggesting that race doesn't exist?
American Black Culture needs to get its head out of it's ass and quite being so lazy and excuse making.
Even if this were true, what would it have to do with the subject of this thread?
...what...have I said...that could conceivably...be interpreted that way?! O.o *blinks*
Sorry, but I don't buy this axiom you're trying to set down, whereby I have to prove that there are statistically significant intellectual differences between people of different skin colour before even mentioning the possibility that there are.
Hey, so I don't have to prove that Jamie fucks his mother before mentioning the possibility that he does.
Jamie the possible motherfucker still can't seem to wrap his possibly motherfucking head around the notion of genetically determined intellectual differences. No one denies that there are statistically significant IQ test differences, the question is what causes them.
And it's important to consider why some questions get raised and others don't. And we know -- from a long history as documented by Stephen Jay Gould in "Mismeasure of Man" -- why the question of biological inferiority of blacks gets raised when the controls noted in the cartoon have not been performed -- racism.
I've taken a number of IQ tests and I've never encountered a question remotely like that.
indeed, someone is confusing a personality index with an IQ test.
sounds more like a question from a MMPI to me.
Culture is a huge motivator for intellectual performance. American Black Culture needs to get its head out of it's ass and quite being so lazy and excuse making.
Who is this, Bill Cosby?
Azkyroth: Sorry, I should have said racial differences. You keep saying that racist ideas have been shown by history to not hold any water, when clearly this is not the case.
truth machine: Say what you will about Jamie but he comes off looking much better than you in all of this... Anyway, would you first give me your definition of "racism"?
These discussions tend to make an atheist argue like a theist.
Those who disagreed should have debated this calmly, instead of resorting to misrepresentation and calling me a "sack of shit" and so on.
Calling you a sack of shit is no misrepresentation.
My original point was that we should have a reasonable discourse on this subject.
I noted in #93 how your "original point" was not reasonable. And I noted in #90 that you have avoided addressing the substantive points. You're an ignorant gasbag concern troll who has nothing intelligent to contribute to the "discourse". You're no better than the IDiots who blather on about "the controversy" but know nothing of the science.
How can statistical differences in IQ scores among races be genetic in origin if races aren't monophyletic? Without answering that basic question, any further "discourse" is pointless.
Quoth truth machine:
The cartoon does nothing of the sort. Among the gross flaws in the implied claims and epistemology:
These studies have been done. The results are not favorable to the "blank slate" theory.
Race is not a biological category? Race is nothing more or less than membership in an extended family; the definition is fluid depending how far back you go. (This neatly ties up Barack Obama and Tiger Woods; Obama is a member of two such families, Woods four). Some families tend toward alcoholism, or impulsive behavior. Why not more or less intelligence?
Quoth Azkyroth:
IIRC, one of the effects of selection of foxes for domesticated personality traits was a change in their melanin metabolism. I found hints to this on PubMed but the abstracts are too vague to confirm.
We do have a direct test of melanin vs. IQ in Africans, in the form of albinos.
The human genome is a huge jumble of stuff. It could easily be the case that genes with substantial influence on intelligence are located near others which control the aspects of visual appearance we call "race". Ruling this out a priori is not scientific.
These questions are going to be settled definitively in the near future, as genetic sequencing gets cheaper. Prepare for the debate to change from "race" to "gene clusters".
Say what you will about Jamie but he comes off looking much better than you in all of this
Better as in more informed? Better as in having more rational arguments? How we "come off" to you is about you, a dolt who can't grasp the difference between social and biological categories.
Anyway, would you first give me your definition of "racism"?
Is your link to dictionary.com broken?
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
These discussions tend to make an atheist argue like a theist.
It does that to racist atheists, certainly.
The idea that the perceived and/or measured differences in intellectual performance between people of different racial backgrounds are due to an innately lower intellectual potential has been consistently unsupported.
Aren't you going to feel foolish if he turns out to be a crock of shit instead?
Ruling this out a priori is not scientific.
No one has ruled anything out a priori. The burden is on those who make the claim.
There might be a point to that if the members of a race were a homogenous group; as has been pointed out many times in this thread alone, they aren't. Africans less so than most.
Also, as has been pointed out many times in this thread alone, no one has ruled anything out "a priori." The scientific community was actually quite receptive to racist hypotheses for a long time. They have ultimately been rejected because they fail when tested by people who aren't already convinced of the answers. As I said, racists are like creationists.
Given that you insist on responding to an idiotic strawman and ignoring the counter-arguments in this thread, you're either rock-stupid or incredibly dishonest.
Or both.
I hope not. Not only is "gene-clusterist" a mouthful, but idiots like you are going to wear out some seriously expensive equipment sequencing and resequencing to try and come up with some results they can cherry-pick to support their racist preconceptions.
It's not racist to proclaim that there is a culture problem in black society. Ofcoarse there is more than one type of "culture" in Black society, but there is a problem with a subset of Black culture that is a hinderance to their progression. Not to say that white or other cultures do not have thier issues. It is not just about the white man today keeping the Black man down as well. There is an internal problem that is culture based that people are too politically correct to talk about. I tell this to my Black friends as well, they know I don't care for what is politically correct.
You do realize that the slave trade is not the only confounding factor here, right? But, I believe the cartoon was specifically addressing black Americans.
It is indeed possible that you are a practicing zoosadist. I have no evidence in favor of this, but it fits in with my preconceptions about the sort of people who believe the sort of things you do, and since it's "possible" and it fits someone's prejudices it is therefore, by your "logic", worthy of being seriously discussed in spite of the lack of supporting evidence and presumed true until buried face-down with a stake through its heart.
So, do you prefer to rape tabbies? Siamese? How do you deal with the claws? Male or female cats? Kittens, or do you wait until they're older?
Hey, to quote another poster, I'm just trying to have a reasonable discourse.
(Also, I addressed the "selective breeding" point earlier. Try reading my response to it.)
Assuming, of course, that the infants grew up in cultures where they weren't treated any differently on the basis of their skin color.
Where exactly do you propose finding one of those?
Citations, plzthx.
And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.
No one is advocating anything that can reasonably be described as a "blank slate" theory, you sniveling little weasel, and you know it perfectly well.
truth machine:
"Better as in more informed? Better as in having more rational arguments?"
Your arguments go out the window when the name calling starts.
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Does it make me a racist to predict that a black man will win the 100m sprint at the 2008 Olympics?
Odd, your original post gave no indication of being cognizant of the fact that Gangsta Rap culture is not representative of black Americans as a whole, that other cultures had issues, or that the white man today keeping the Black man down contributed anything to the problem.
It could easily be the case that genes with substantial influence on intelligence are located near others which control the aspects of visual appearance we call "race".
And it could even more easily not be the case.
Various empirical misunderstandings lead people to believe in obvious PSI powers. Careful attention shows that there are no such obvious powers, but some researchers uncover what they think are subtle indications of PSI powers -- but with proper controls, such indications fade into statistically insignificant noise. It's important to note that no one would be investigating PSI on the subtle statistical level if it weren't for the initial false belief in PSI on the macro level -- the phenomenon being researched is no longer the phenomenon that was observed. This throws major doubt on the PSI hypothesis and on the objectivity of PSI researchers.
There's a similar story about race-based genetic differences in intelligence, which the cartoon illustrates. The belief in such a genetic cause originally came from racist-motivated interpretations of performance differences; there is no independent basis for suspecting a biological origin of these differences. The biological hypothesis is not driven by observation, and thus is not good science. There's no a priori reason to rule out the hypothesis, but there's also no a priori reason to consider it. If genome studies turn out to show that there's an association between "intelligence" genes and "racial appearance" genes, then so be it -- it's just another random empirical fact. But it's dishonest to ignore why people are so interested in trying to demonstrate this particular hypothesis.
Your arguments go out the window when the name calling starts.
That's an ad hominem fallacy.
Only if you think that the entire black race will win the 100m sprint. You really don't understand the relevant concepts.
It's also worth noting that being more skeptical than usual of pro-racism "results" and arguments due to their very long and broad history of producing junk science and little else is not "ruling them out a priori." Some of you seem to be a bit confused on that point.
Does it make me a racist to predict that a black man will win the 100m sprint at the 2008 Olympics?
Only if you think that the entire black race will win the 100m sprint. You really don't understand the relevant concepts.
Your right Azkyroth I was over-generalizing before. But, my main point still stands that in order for Black culture to get out of the single mom issues and the high incarceration rates, the culture needs to change. If the good part of their culture will kick the other part in the ass thereby removing the head, then there will be less of a problem. It is a lame excuse today to just blame the white man. I am not very politically correct obviously. To be too politically correct is cowardice. I like what Ayan Hirsi Ali has to say concerning political correctness.
In re the 100m sprint, I predict that the winner won't be a pygmy or Sherri Shepherd. This point was covered earlier by Azkyroth: Ethnic groups are far from homogenous, and "black people" are farther from homogenous than most. But this significant biological fact seems to be steadfastly ignored by those who cling to the genetic hypothesis for racial differences in IQ scores for no valid scientific reason.
I know that this is a small sample size, but my co-worker who is from Ethiopia and is here getting through school to be an engineer told my boss that American Blacks do not get along with Ethiopians because there was a culture clash - namely that Ethiopians are studious and hard-working, and are seen as a sort of Bizzaro version of American Blacks by the American Blacks.
I tell this to my Black friends as well, they know I don't care for what is politically correct.
uh oh.
another "I have black friends".
ya know, I had a black friend once that hit me when i said i had black friends.
I am not very politically correct obviously. To be too politically correct is cowardice.
No, to shore up your own views and attack the views you disagree with on the basis that they are "politically correct" is extraordinary intellectual cowardice.
I know that this is a small sample size
Ya think? On top of that, it's a moronic argument from authority.
"I got's an African friend who sez American nigrxxxnegrxxxblacks is lazy."
I did not hear any arguments concerning cultural difficulties (if there are any), and I did disagree based upon what we view as culture truth machine. You can come up with better reasons right? I enjoy a good discussion that will improve my views.
It's also worth noting that being more skeptical than usual of pro-racism "results" and arguments due to their very long and broad history of producing junk science and little else is not "ruling them out a priori." Some of you seem to be a bit confused on that point.
Even though this is the very point made by PZ and the cartoon.
I did not hear any arguments concerning cultural difficulties
I'll ask you again: what does that have to do with this thread? The topic isn't (directly) "Bashing black culture".
Because I'm not convinced by any genetic reasons for how blacks do on these I.Q. tests yet, so there might be other reasons like less education. And culture can be a causal or at least major conducive factor in that.
Only if you think that the entire black race will win the 100m sprint. You really don't understand the relevant concepts.
That makes absolutely no sense.
I'm using the definition that you posted:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement"
There is no doubt that a black man is much more likely to win the 100m sprint than a white man and genetics are a major factor in this. By your definition, this alone makes it racist.
I don't see how this in any way implies that all blacks must be better runners than any individual white person. If I make the claim (true or not) that on average whites have a higher IQ than blacks this does NOT mean that any individual white person has a higher IQ than every single member of the black race and it would be foolish to claim such.
There are substantial differences between races (as defined by common usage) on IQ and Armed Forces Qualifying Test results. The burden is now on those who claim that there is no genetic component to this.
The claim is probably false, as genetic influences on intelligence have been proven (see article 2, "Role of the cholinergic muscarinic 2 receptor (CHRM2) gene in cognition.").
I admit my original post was not polite. I could have been anti-politically correct in a more polite way. I am not detracting from my culture argument however.
There are substantial differences between races (as defined by common usage) on IQ and Armed Forces Qualifying Test results. The burden is now on those who claim that there is no genetic component to this.
This whole thread is about the claim that there is a genetic component -- the burden is on those who make the claim. Turning this around is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.
The claim is probably false, as genetic influences on intelligence have been proven
No one doubts that there are genetic influences on intelligence, but this has no bearing on the question whether the statistical differences among races have a genetic basis. Your "probably false" claim is yet another one that you have burden to support, and your citation does not do so.
Wrong. The burden is on those attempting to positively ascribe it to any factor. GENETICS IS NOT THE DEFAULT ASSUMPTION.
Again, the heritability of intelligence explains individuals, but there would have to be a level of genetic homogeneity within a give population, and a level of isolation from other populations, that have never been the case in the Really Real World for a very long time to produce this kind of difference genetically.
If it is not genetics or the white man keeping the black man down, then it is culture. Hungry poor kids from India are coming over here and doing well, Blacks need to use that same attitude. And that will take some culture tweaking.
Actually, it's even worse than that. You want us to default to explaining this phenomenon on the basis of genetic factors that might conceivably exist but which A) we have not yet discovered and B) present numerous implausibilities given the actual Really Real World characteristics and history of the groupS involved, instead of starting with a hypothesis derived from the socioeconomic and cultural factors we do know about, are logically consistent, and have been quantififed. If this didn't involve dark-skinned people you desperately want to think are inferior, I am quite certain this would make as little sense to you as it does to everyone reasonable here.
That makes absolutely no sense.
That's because you're dense.
There is no doubt that a black man is much more likely to win the 100m sprint than a white man and genetics are a major factor in this.
Look fool, the winner won't be a pygmy, but pygmies are black ... so does that make blacks inferior runners to whites at the same time that they are superior runners to whites? Once again, Ethnic groups are far from homogenous, and "black people" are farther from homogenous than most. Do you understand what that word means?
By your definition, this alone makes it racist.
It's not my definition, moron, it's the dictionary's.
If I make the claim (true or not) that on average whites have a higher IQ than blacks
The definition refers to inherent differences, not contingent differences. It's the move from the latter -- which the evidence supports -- to the former, which it does not -- that is racist.
Additionally, the burden is on those who want to claim that genetics accounts for
that there actually are pervasive genetic similarities in traits other than skin color and a couple other superficial elements of appearance within
So far, the evidence is against this idea.
Checkmate, good night.
Actually, it's even worse than that. You want us to default to explaining this phenomenon on the basis of genetic factors that might conceivably exist but which A) we have not yet discovered and B) present numerous implausibilities given the actual Really Real World characteristics and history of the groupS involved, instead of starting with a hypothesis derived from the socioeconomic and cultural factors we do know about, are logically consistent, and have been quantififed.
Indeed. As I have said, it's dishonest to ignore why people are so attached to this hypothesis of genetic causes for differences in IQ test results among races when there is no no valid scientific reason for proposing the hypothesis.
Checkmate, good night.
You're the only one playing your off-topic game, nutcase.
substantial differences between races (as defined by common usage) on IQ and Armed Forces Qualifying Test results
Note: race in such cases isn't determined by "common usage", it's determined by self identification.
Quoth Azkyroth:
You're asserting that homogeneity is required for the claim to be valid. Quite the contrary; you can make valid generalizations about two groups with different distributions without making or even implying a claim about individual members.
This makes a lot of people on the political left uncomfortable (note the flap about Larry Summers, who did nothing more than to note this un-PC truth). It does have implications for public policy, in that the assumptions behind racial quotas and other demands for group parity are defective, and the policies based on them doomed to fail.
Thanks for proving my point about discomfort. Your descent into ad-hominems and other uses of well-poisoning indicates the bankruptcy of your position. It also shows why research into these questions is so circumscribed, and most writing about it so tendentious.
FWIW, if Ms. Fuzzbutt could read and appreciate your comments, she would be much amused. As it is, she's sitting on the sofa next to me, probably wishing I wouldn't stop petting her to make funny clicking noises on this thing occupying her place on my lap. My coming down with the flu has meant more attention for her.
You can cast this inter-species caressing as sexual harassment, but I'm busy turning that into humor so anything you say is likely to be satirized.
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (more on
Wikipedia). You're welcome.
Here is a question for truth machine, Azkyroth, Engineer-Poet, antihumanist, anyone else.
This was one of the most talked about papers of 2007:
Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution. John Hawks, Eric T. Wang, Gregory Cochran, Henry C. Harpending, and Robert K. Moyzis. Proc. National Academy of Sciences 104(52):20753- 20758
If it is correct, what implications - if any - does this article have for your respective arguments?
Perhaps the authors themselves would like to weigh in.
(Repeating minus a link, because holding for moderation means that a comment is vanishingly unlikely to be seen...)
Quoth Azkyroth:
You're asserting that homogeneity is required for the claim to be valid. Quite the contrary; you can make valid generalizations about two groups with different distributions without making or even implying a claim about individual members.
This makes a lot of people on the political left uncomfortable (note the flap about Larry Summers, who did nothing more than to note this un-PC truth). It does have implications for public policy, in that the assumptions behind racial quotas and other demands for group parity are defective, and the policies based on them doomed to fail.
Thanks for proving my point about discomfort. Your descent into ad-hominems and other uses of well-poisoning indicates the bankruptcy of your position. It also shows why research into these questions is so circumscribed, and most writing about it so tendentious.
FWIW, if Ms. Fuzzbutt could read and appreciate your comments, she would be much amused. As it is, she's sitting on the sofa next to me, probably wishing I wouldn't stop petting her to make funny clicking noises on this thing occupying her place on my lap. My coming down with the flu has meant more attention for her.
You can cast this inter-species caressing as sexual harassment, but I'm busy turning that into humor so anything you say is likely to be satirized.
Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (more on
Wikipedia @ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study). You're welcome.
I know that this is a small sample size, but my co-worker who is from Ethiopia and is here getting through school to be an engineer told my boss that American Blacks do not get along with Ethiopians because there was a culture clash - namely that Ethiopians are studious and hard-working, and are seen as a sort of Bizzaro version of American Blacks by the American Blacks.
Which is why, through good ol' hard work, Ethiopians have managed to avoid famine, lack of potable water, political turmoil, and other characteristics of a Third World shithole, unlike their shiftless, no-good, chicken-stealin' black American counterparts. In other news, recent discoveries have convinced scientists that the world is 6000 years old and that human beings were created from dirt. Allah be praised!
Quoth "truth" machine (who appears to be more of a dogma and insult machine):
I produce a cite proving that the proponents have met that burden, and you refuse to acknowledge it. So much for "truth".
This will be hard to prove if Azkyroth and his ilk are allowed to determine what research gets done; someone making statements like "idiots like you are going to wear out some seriously expensive equipment sequencing and resequencing to try and come up with some results they can cherry-pick to support their racist preconceptions" isn't interested in addressing the hypothesis with better data; he just wants to deny it, as any confirmation is unthinkable.
Fortunately for truth, the same testing which is going to tell us which drugs will work for different individuals or whether we have predispositions to various diseases is going to yield this information as a byproduct. There's no stopping it; the truth will out. And as in astrophysics and other sciences, the picture which emerges from the improvement in resolution will make the previous debates moot (including this one).
Look fool, the winner won't be a pygmy, but pygmies are black ... so does that make blacks inferior runners to whites at the same time that they are superior runners to whites? Once again, Ethnic groups are far from homogenous, and "black people" are farther from homogenous than most. Do you understand what that word means?
I made the claim that the winner of the 100m sprint will be a black man and while it's unlikely that he will be a pygmy, it doesn't change the fact the the winner will probably be black, pygmy or not.
The definition refers to inherent differences, not contingent differences. It's the move from the latter -- which the evidence supports -- to the former, which it does not -- that is racist.
The idea that the black/white gap is genetic describes a contingent difference and as long as nobody is claiming that blacks are inherently inferior with regard to IQ, the genetic theory should not be considered racist at all. Right?
It does have implications for public policy, in that the assumptions behind racial quotas and other demands for group parity are defective, and the policies based on them doomed to fail.
There we have it. Mr. Engineer knows this even though his hypothesis hasn't been established. And apparently he hasn't even read The Bell Curve, which points out that this is not a valid inference from the hypothesis.
the political left
Read "not racist and sexist".
I made the claim that the winner of the 100m sprint will be a black man and while it's unlikely that he will be a pygmy, it doesn't change the fact the the winner will probably be black, pygmy or not.
The question is whether the prediction is racist, that is, implies an inherent racial superiority, moron.
The idea that the black/white gap is genetic describes a contingent difference
No, genetics is inherent, moron.
the genetic theory
There's no such "theory", moron. There's a hypothesis that lacks any scientific justification.
I produce a cite proving that the proponents have met that burden, and you refuse to acknowledge it. So much for "truth".
I pointed out that your citation doesn't support the hypothesis, you racist asshole. A genetic component of intelligence -- which is uncontroversial, has nothing to do with the genetic race hypothesis.
There's no stopping it; the truth will out.
And yet you claim that the burden has already been met. What a dishonest piece of scum.
I am asserting that your claim that a race according to common usage represents a homogenous group (in your words an "extended family"), on which your assumptions about common genetic characteristics are based, is manifestly at odds with the facts.
BTW, the abstract of the paper he cited:
This would seem to support the hypothesis that intelligence is highly but not totally heritable at the individual level. To the best of my knowledge no one disputes this. How exactly does this support your claim that average differences in IQ between cultural categories of "race" have a primarily genetic basis?
Project much?
If it is correct, what implications - if any - does this article have for your respective arguments?
None that I can see. Why do you think that rates of adaptive evolution are relevant? Once again, races are not homogenous and there are extensive known socioeconomic factors that contribute significantly to IQ disparities.
As a future engineer I don't think I like the implications of being considered part of the same cultural group as this jackass.
Also, see truth machine on the meaning of the term "ad hominem".
Also, Colugo: I'd have to read it first. Any suggestions?
This would seem to support the hypothesis that intelligence is highly but not totally heritable at the individual level. To the best of my knowledge no one disputes this. How exactly does this support your claim that average differences in IQ between cultural categories of "race" have a primarily genetic basis?
It doesn't, if course. Intelligence could be 99% heritable and the statistical differences between races could still be 100% due to environmental factors.
Granted, it was in practice a rhetorical question. ^.^
Also, Colugo: I'd have to read it first. Any suggestions?
google readily yields http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf
D'oh. Thanks. Encountered too many paywalls in the past x.x
It doesn't, if course. Intelligence could be 99% heritable and the statistical differences between races could still be 100% due to environmental factors.
I overstated this. It depends on exactly what "% heritable" means, and how large the statistical differences are. But no one has presented a study that shows that the average difference of IQ scores between races is larger than the average contribution of environmental factors to IQ scores. Even the authors of The Bell Curve wrote "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."
I don't support the race-brain-genes differences position.
I also have doubts about some of the claims of the Hawks et al PNAS paper. Namely, that selection since the origin of modern sapiens is as accelerated, and that much of it is as strong, as they claim.
In addition, it seems to me that implications of the paper are clearly compatible - at the very least - with the race-brain-genes differences position, and it's remarkable that this fact has gotten as little attention as it had.
PhysOrg article on the Hawks et al paper, 12/10/07:
"We aren't the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago," [Harpending] says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. "The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence."
"Human races are evolving away from each other," Harpending says. "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity." He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, "and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then."
"Our study denies the widely held assumption or belief that modern humans appeared 40,000 years ago, have not changed since and that we are all pretty much the same. We show that humans are changing relatively rapidly on a scale of centuries to millennia, and that these changes are different in different continental groups."
The Economist on accelerated human evolution research:
"The finding that may cause most controversy, however, is that in the Asian groups there has been strong selection for one variant of a gene that, in a different form, is responsible for Gaucher's disease. A few years ago two of the paper's other authors, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, suggested that the Gaucher's form of the gene might be connected with the higher than average intelligence notable among Ashkenazi Jews. The unstated inference is that something similar might be true in Asians, too."
"We aren't the same as people even 1,000 or 2,000 years ago," [Harpending] says, which may explain, for example, part of the difference between Viking invaders and their peaceful Swedish descendants. "The dogma has been these are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influence."
I find this sort of statement more than a little silly. How do you explain the difference between the U.S. Wild West and current society? How about the Crusades and the Inquisition and the current Catholic church? How about Germany of WWI and WWII and modern Germany? Samarai Japan and modern Japan? Pinning the behavior of Viking invaders on genetic temperament is stupid.
A few years ago two of the paper's other authors, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, suggested that the Gaucher's form of the gene might be connected with the higher than average intelligence notable among Ashkenazi Jews.
Uh, why is this suggestion given any credence? There's nothing about Gaucher's disease that suggests that it -- or being a carrier for it -- might increase intelligence.
Wouldn't you pretty much have to posit either Lamarckism or a rate of both general reproduction and dying without reproducing that we simply don't observe in history in order to make this work?
I haven't read any of the posts in the last series of exchanges, and I'm not going to side with anyone. I will observe, though, that Truth Machine was on the prowl long after I left. Apparently he has nothing better to do. Bear this in mind next time he tries to start another witch hunt, for he really does relish the opportunity to unleash his vitriol and endless stream of unwarranted deductions about his opponents' personal attributes. (I was, for example, several times accused of ignorance of science, despite that he knows nothing of my scientific background. At the very most he can say that I'm ignorant of the literature on race, "scientific racism" and such topics.) How pathetic.
Let me quote Richard Dawkins, who does well to summarize my modest position on race. In the Grasshopper's Tale from The Ancestor's Tale, he makes clear his scorn for Lewontin's politically-laden dogma. I'll just quote part of it, as you can see for yourself.
He goes on to explain why.
Now of course it doesn't follow that there's gentic variation in intelligence between these groups. But once we have groups of genetic and taxonomic significance which aren't invisible to social influences, the mere possibility of intelligence differences between these groups is raised. There's no point in denying that the group conventionally known as "African-Americans", while fuzzy-edged and hard to define, was genetically isolated for geographical reasons until around time of the slave trade, and has been to a large extent genetically isolated ever since for social and political reasons.
So it isn't vacuous to talk about intellectual disparities between (at least some) things we call races. Now I don't think there's grounds to believe this, and I actually agree with the principal thesis of Diamond's Germs, Guns and Steel. All I want to say here is that (1) this is not a meaningless question, and (2) we shouldn't react hysterically whenever anyone raises it. Let's be scientists, not activists.
Apparently he has nothing better to do. Bear this in mind next time he tries to start another witch hunt, for he really does relish the opportunity to unleash his vitriol and endless stream of unwarranted deductions about his opponents' personal attributes.
Blah blah ad hominem blah. People here are well enough familiar with me and well enough able to make their own judgments about my posts without your pathetic whiny direction.
I was, for example, several times accused of ignorance of science, despite that he knows nothing of my scientific background.
Inference boyo, inference.
I've got to be cautious of being misrepresented, so I'll have to state the obvious. In my last post I meant that the recent ancestors of the group now known as African-Americans were to a large extent genetically isolated for thousands of years in Africa and consequently evolving in different environments from European "races". The genetic isolation has to a large extent persisted for social and economic reasons, so it remains possible that there is measurable difference in genetic intelligence between African-Americans and other groups.
Egad, he's still at it. He really does love the taste of vitriol. Maybe he should consider getting a life.
i love truth machine
Race is not a biological category? Race is nothing more or less than membership in an extended family; the definition is fluid depending how far back you go.
Engineer-Poet, the following terms would be useful for you to learn: Monophyletic and Polyphyletic.
G.W. Bush may be in the same extended family as P.Z. Myers, but they are both alsoin the same extended family as Nelson Mandela. However, it doesn't work the other way around.
And of course, there was no migration or trade over any of that time, so we have completely discrete populations with nothing in common with each other, right?
And when they were forced over here, most of the women were raped such that, on average, 1/5 of their ancestry is European (people often use the 20% white blood or whatever nonsensical way of talking about it).
Still waiting for a useful definition of race, more useful than "continent of origin" or "skin color."
And to what extent was that "group" actually composed of several independently isolated groups in Africa? To what extent was the "IQ" of those groups different from Europeans?
And to what extent does it make sense to even talk about "IQ" as some fixed genetic feature when "IQ" scores overall have shown large increases (as much as 7 points per decade), and that "blacks" in the US have shown large increases in "IQ" over the past three decades?
The genetic isolation has to a large extent persisted for social and economic reasons, so it remains possible that there is measurable difference in genetic intelligence between African-Americans and other groups.
No one has ever denied that these absurd racist hypotheses are possible, but that's not how science works.
The genetic isolation has to a large extent persisted for social and economic reasons
Only if you neglect the history of slave owners, and just plain old more powerful "white" folks raping black folks. Thomas Jefferson and Strom Thurmond anyone?
And when they were forced over here, most of the women were raped such that, on average, 1/5 of their ancestry is European (people often use the 20% white blood or whatever nonsensical way of talking about it).
Now now, Jamie is trying to have a "reasonable discourse" ... introducing facts that challenge his ignorant "genetic isolation" fantasies is "dishonest"; "Obviously a knockdown argument against "scientific racism" isn't so easily had". "This oversimplification is almost as bad as the creationist canard that we can't observe "macroevolution", therefore it didn't occur." It's not fair to dismiss racist arguments "with these clearly politically-motivated, childishly simple arguments". You can't know anything "until we actually discuss the matter sensibly". You are "far too eager to simply say what's politically correct (regardless of its justification) and gain the applause of" your "mainly leftist readership".
Only if you neglect the history of slave owners, and just plain old more powerful "white" folks raping black folks.
Also if you neglect the fact that the known "social and economic reasons" are a far far more plausible explanation for statistical differences in IQ scores than any unknown genetic change in intelligence over the timescale involved. Science is about inference to the best explanation, not about making conceivability arguments for hypotheses that have nothing to recommend them except ... well, you know.
And to what extent was that "group" actually composed of several independently isolated groups in Africa? To what extent was the "IQ" of those groups different from Europeans?
It's still possible that racist assumptions are valid ... that there was some mutation that made whites smarter and that all whites have inherited. Just because there's no evidence of this doesn't mean that you can dismiss it ... unless you understand anything about science.
But it IS vacuous to talk about BIOLOGICAL differences among "groups" that have no clear BIOLOGICAL reality.
I'll just quote part of it, as you can see for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining
the group conventionally known as "African-Americans", while fuzzy-edged and hard to define, was genetically isolated for geographical reasons until around time of the slave trade
Assumes ahistorical horseshit not in evidence.
Azkyroth @ # 47, you say, "Ethnic groups are far from homogenous, and "black people" are farther from homogenous than most."
Yes, so the evidence indicates. So what? I'm only talking about potential variations in the frequency distribution of alleles among groups that are not significantly interbreeding.
You also ask three questions:
1) Can you define any of the highlighted terms for me? I'm quite positive you're using "group-level selection" incorrectly, and the other two look suspicious.
Darwin, in "The Origin...", could not define species. He discussed the situation where experts could not agree on the question of whether a particular group of organisms constituted a species or a variety. This does not destroy the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Nor does the fact that I cannot give you a precise definition of 'group' destroy my argument. To think that it does is reminiscent of the way that Creationists think.
2) What differences in physical environments are there between the total range of those inhabited by "black people" and those inhabited by "Asians" and "Europeans" that you consider plausible candidates for causes of differences in intelligence?
The long season where nothing much edible grows would be a factor. Sure, Africa has a dry season, but the northern winter was probably more of a challenge: lets face it, hibernation is more common than estivation. Anyway, new environments mean new challenges. It's that simple.
3) Cultural differences contributing to genetic evolution? HTF do you figure that? You are aware that Lamarckism has been discredited, right?"
It's funny how the crypto-fascist gang of liberals here resorts to insults. (I suppose I shall be accused of 'tu quoque'). But anyway, as technology developed, over hundreds of generations, that would provide the same sort of impetus to variation of the distribution of alleles as would environmental change, which we all know is a driver of evolution by natural selection.
Just for the record, while I cannot believe that all races (whatever that means) are, on average, intellectually equal, I do believe that each individual should be judged on their merits, because variation of the diverse human qualities within races is likely to be fairly close to the total variation within our species.
What's remarkable here is that PZ wrote Next time I'm told by some "scientific" racist that he has evidence backing up his contention that certain races are inferior and yet, in 200 posts no evidence for this contention has been provided (Engineer-Poet's citations aren't that sort of evidence), and no rebuttal has been offered to the point made in the cartoon, that the mere fact of statistical disparities among races isn't such evidence because it doesn't control for socioeconomic factors. All we have is a bunch of moaning about some strawman a priori rejection of the racist contention.
I'm only talking about potential variations in the frequency distribution of alleles among groups that are not significantly interbreeding.
Now show where "black" populations are not interbreeding, so as to make this fucking relevant.
It's funny how the crypto-fascist gang of liberals here resorts to insults.
Boo hoo hoo. Poor little hypocritical right winger.
while I cannot believe that all races (whatever that means) are, on average, intellectually equal
No one has ever claimed that all races are, on average, intellectually equal, moron. People with different blood types or eye color aren't, on average, intellectually equal either. But there's no reason to think that the statistical disparities in intellect among these groups is due to genetic factors that differ between the groups.
The long season where nothing much edible grows would be a factor. Sure, Africa has a dry season, but the northern winter was probably more of a challenge: lets face it, hibernation is more common than estivation. Anyway, new environments mean new challenges. It's that simple.
So are all species in the north smarter than all species in the south?
This sort of ad hoc reaching is the worst sort of "just so" story.
Now show where "black" populations are not interbreeding, so as to make this fucking relevant.
Hey, don't you know that anyone who looks black must be carrying predominantly black genes?
Completely bogus "argument" Scientific racism DEPENDS on the existence of "races". The ToE really deals with POPULATIONS of organisms and in no way depends on whether said populations can meaningfully be classified as species. It's very questionable, for example, whether the species concept has much utility in the case of the organisms that dominate the biosphere- the prokaryotes. Yet the ToE applies just as much to them as to any other living things.
The long season where nothing much edible grows would be a factor. Sure, Africa has a dry season, but the northern winter was probably more of a challenge: lets face it, hibernation is more common than estivation. Anyway, new environments mean new challenges. It's that simple.
Considering that modern humans, and their purported intelligence, appeared first in Africa, I'd say that Africa (specifically the Horn) was the environment most likely to select for intelligence (going by your assumptions).
Whoopsie.
Sigh...it is so depressing to hear people like Jamie debating this race and IQ issue, especially since they clearly don't have a clue about psychometrics and the design and use of IQ tests.
Firstly it is almost impossible to have a truely culture neutral IQ test. While more non-verbal abstract tests could be said to be more culturally fair then a "Why does the state require people to obtain licenses for marriage?" question, a culture in which abstract tests are part of the educational system(e.g. SAT's or other aptitude tests)will score higher in these tests, i.e. the more people practise these tests the greater the chance of doing well in them. And that's not even taking into account translation issues!
Someone above mentioned "IQ and the Wealth of Nations". This is a study where the authors arbitrarily modified the results of mean IQ's from different countries to suit their hypothesis and where data was not available from a country they MADE IT UP. Very scientific as I'm sure you'll agree.
Also there is the Flynn effect. Malcolm Gladwell has a good piece on the race, IQ and the Flynn effect over at the New Yorker which is worth reading http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books…
I know I've been away from this thread for a while, but some commenters (117, 122) have questioned whether IQ tests actually contain moral questions on them or whether I'm confusing IQ tests for personality inventories. I'm not. The WISC-IV has an entire section (under "Verbal comprehension") that requires test-takers to respond to questions out loud; some of the questions require "knowledge acquired from one's environment" (as if everyone had similar environments), while others really do require an understanding of cultural norms. Perhaps this is only a feature of the WISC-IV.
Graculus, you ask, "Now show where "black" populations are not interbreeding, so as to make this fucking relevant.
Why. What's the point? How would this fucking be relevant to this issue? I mean, how else, for most of the world's people, is any sort of breeding done, other than by fucking?
truth machine, you state, No one has ever claimed that all races are, on average, intellectually equal, moron. People with different blood types or eye color aren't, on average, intellectually equal either. But there's no reason to think that the statistical disparities in intellect among these groups is due to genetic factors that differ between the groups.
Okay, I'll fess up to a omission there. I apparently should've added, "all other things being equal". Mind you, I thought that was implicitly obvious, so, the question must be asked, "who's really the moron"?
I have to say it, the crypto-fascist gang of liberals here twists everything that others they disagree with write, just as the Creationists do. They also resort to insult. Is this because each are hanging onto ideologies that, deep down, they know are indefensible?
I shall take no further part in this discussuion because I'm too busy to waste more time on silly distortions of arguments with people apparently as intransigent as Creationists.
I have to say it, the crypto-fascist gang of liberals here twists everything that others they disagree with write, just as the Creationists do
Someone is clueless as to what fascism is.
Krypto was a fascist?
Bad puppy!
I think anyone proposing a genetic link between race and IQ should take this into account.
#209, Ruaidhri, many thx for the link.
I think this is the key argument from this article :
" But to label them less intelligent than Westerners, on the basis of their performance on that test, is merely to state that they have different cognitive preferences and habits. And if I.Q. varies with habits of mind, which can be adopted or discarded in a generation, what, exactly, is all the fuss about? "
Indeed, what is all the fuss about ? What are some people trying to prove, to what effect ? Economic policy ?
Why even call "leftist" people who believe, as I do, that a better world will be one where there are less disparities between north and south.
Right, and what technology does is allow for specialization -- in other words, individuals don't have to be as individually smart in order to survive. Compare, for example, the skills that would be needed to live in the African savanahs, versus the skills needed to work on an assembly line -- which situation do you think requires greater cognitive capacity?
Oh boy, it's the Ice People/Sun People" argument, a favourite of white supremacists everywhere!
Okay, I'll fess up to a omission there. I apparently should've added, "all other things being equal". Mind you, I thought that was implicitly obvious, so, the question must be asked, "who's really the moron"?
You are, clearly. Once again, "there's no reason to think that the statistical disparities in intellect among these groups is due to genetic factors that differ between the groups". This applies just as much to groups of people who share race as it does to groups of people who share hair color, and it would still be true if all other things were equal, in the sense that environmental differences between races were eliminated.
Someone is clueless as to what fascism is.
Not so much clueless as in denial about his own.
What are some people trying to prove, to what effect ? Economic policy ?
For some; see #165:
Malcolm Gladwell has a good piece on the race, IQ and the Flynn effect over at the New Yorker which is worth reading http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books…
A pity this wasn't the first post; blows IQ fundamentalism and the attendant racism out of the water.
I shall take no further part in this discussuion
Can't answer questions, has no evidence, claims we're being mean. Yawn.
Brave, brave Sir Robin.
"I shall take no further part in this discussuion"
He's lying, of course.
Trolls always come back.
THEY ALWAYS COME BACK.
Curious; I thought you were talking about potential variations in the frequency distribution of phenotypic traits not fully linked to any specific alleles in the multiple groups of native Africans and their descendents.
He did, however, define "descent with modification" and "natural selection," which are more analogous to the terms you're misusing, and did not egregiously misuse any of his terms according to the definitions of his time.
What evidence do you have that winter would have the effect of selecting for slightly greater intelligence rather than greater hairiness or fatness? (Especially given the well-known metabolic demands of the brain).
So, other than the winter, what's new about the environments?
That would only be true if there was a marked difference in genetic aptitude for technology usage and a much greater rate of survival for those who had it. What evidence would you offer that this was the case?
(Actually, it looks more as though you're assuming evolution should produce something simply because it would be useful, rather than due to actual reproductive pressures, which is both silly and rather typical of creationist misunderstandings).
If at the end of the day the evidence shows that it is in fact white people who are less intelligent on average once socioeconomic, nutritional, and similar factors are controlled, would you accept that result? Somehow, I don't think you would.
hibernation is more common than estivation.
well, among the warm furry things called mammals, anyway.
not so sure that's true when you look at other vertebrates.
lungfish and many species of amphibians immediately come to mind.
also, plenty of inverts.
moreover, IIRC, the "dry season" in larger Africa is a relatively "recent" thing geologically. there used to be a lot more water in the sub-Saharan area.
Truth machine truly delivers in this thread.
I'd say that by-and-large the U.S. is still essentially racist, so I'm not very surprised by the amount of 'pro- scientific-racism- apologists' that are posting in this thread. Full disclosure, I guess, I say this as someone with an "interracial" marriage. (Whatever 'interracial' really means, haha. I think terms like 'race' are for the most part meaningless. Let's use ethnicity, since 'race' is largely abiological anyhow.)
As a psychologist who has used the WISC-IV and the WAIS - III let me say that the tests are not without cultural bias.
As a poor white kid (which I was when i was growing up) I would have answered the question 'what should I do if I find someone's wallet' with - see what's in it and keep it. The correct answer is hand it to an authority.
These test are not without bias, however that does not invalidate the whole test... I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle
Black I.Q. test scores will go up when Blacks aculturate themselves more with the Asian community who has a cultural work ethic that values mental perspiration as a key ingrediant for success.
Truth Machine has contorted himself in funny positions - like bending over to be spanked by political correctness, for which he gains pleasure in a dominatrix way. And his opposites may be a bit too extreme (and hence wrong) in their genetic ideologues.
Aside from the fact that you've got nothing to say that hasn't already been torn apart in this thread, the highlighted statements contradict each other.
No they have not been torn apart and those two highlighted statements do not contradict each other. The argument from genetics is different from the argument from culture. I am arguing from culture and not from genetics as a driver for academic values and achievement which cause I.Q. test scores to go up.
Anti-intellectualism is up across the board in American culture. It will be interesting to see if in ten or 20 years if our median I.Q. scores actually go down, versus the steady climb we've been seeing. I don't see this as confined to any particular socio-ethnic group (but may correlate with socio-economic groups, that is, rich-white-kids may be somewhat insulated from this change in culture even while their parents' politics and their pop-media promote it).
On topic though, this doesn't have anything to do with the genetics as far as I can tell.
I didn't say there was perfect genetic isolation. Separation between populations is almost never perfect, as is evidenced by the phenomenon of "rafting" between different islands. The fact remains that there might have been a good degree of isolation.
Anyway, if you're going to make statistical claims, I want the citations.
Doesn't matter. I was just using the fairly arbitrary, popularly perceived race of African-Americans as an example. It doesn't have to be that group; all that matters to my original point is that some racial categories can be of taxonomic significance. If you deny this, I'll refer you to Dawkins and Edwards.
"yo mamma":
Well then, you'll no doubt be happy to hear that in the US Black IQ scores have been going up since the '70s. (And just a word of advice, "yo", if you're going to argue about a group's inferior IQ, you might want to ensure that you "aculturate" the "ingrediant" of proper spelling. You wouldn't want anyone to think you're Black, would you?)
It is pretty clear that those who impute differences (if there are any) in average intelligence (however measured) between "races" (however defined) to "genetics" do so not because of scientific validity but for other reasons, usually racism.
It is very well known that there are larger differences in intelligence (however measured) within "races" (however defined) than there are between races (however defined). If the presumption is that a "race" (however defined) has a preponderance of shared genetics, and if intelligence is determined by genetics, then there should be more difference between races (however defined) than within a race (however defined) because presumably that "race" is more genetically homogeneous. This is not observed. The hypothesis that the difference in intelligence (however measured) between races (however defined) is due to genetics is thus proven false.
The hypothesis could be false for a number of reasons. That it is false is not in doubt.
Probably the main reason is that the largest determinants of intelligence are non-genetic, and these non-genetic components accounts for most of the variation within a "race". Whether they are due to environment or flaws in testing is immaterial.
Another large factor is the assumption that a "race" (however defined) is to some extent genetically homogeneous. If a "race" isn't genetically homogeneous, it makes no sense to lump them together as a group and then impute genetically differences to that group.
If the largest factor(s) are not understood and are not controlled for, can small differences be attributed to smaller factors while ignoring the larger uncontrolled factor(s)? Of course not. Those who do so show themselves to not understand basic scientific principles. They also show themselves to be racist.
If the circumstances of black Americans are, as you claim, due to cultural factors, then the genetic ideologues' statements are completely wrong. Following that by saying that they're wrong because they're "extreme" is cowardly and intellectually dishonest (and implying that positions which are labeled "extreme" are automatically wrong is idiotic).
Additionally, while a disinclination toward hard work probably explains the circumstances of many individual black people, there are a number of other factors that you have completely ignored in favor of blaming the victim because, for whatever reason, you find it personally gratifying. These have been explored in the thread. You might try reading through it.
The fact remains that without some positive evidence in favor of that hypothesis, "might have been" doesn't cut it. No matter how much you or anyone else personally wants the conclusion to be true.
Dawkins is human and capable of being mistaken, and Edwards is...which person with that surname? I'd be interested to see the data behind Dawkins' supposed claims (taking the attribution of those claims to him with a grain of salt, since scientific racists seem to be like creationists in all other respects).
He's lying, of course.
Trolls always come back.
Mr. Harris will certainly be back in the next scientific racism thread; that's where I last saw him (he said the same stuff).
Black I.Q. test scores will go up when Blacks aculturate themselves more with the Asian community who has a cultural work ethic that values mental perspiration as a key ingrediant for success.
Perhaps you suffer from the misconception that Asian IQ scores are higher than average. See the article about the Flynn effect above to be disabused of that notion: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books…
Truth Machine has contorted himself in funny positions - like bending over to be spanked by political correctness, for which he gains pleasure in a dominatrix way.
I'm interested in what is correct, even if it happens to be "politically correct". Care to point out some error I've made, supporting your claims with something other than your own ignorant opinion?
People keep asking for data to back up the claim that intelligence may vary between genetic clusters.
Although no single work can be said to be free of bias or interpretation (especially when published as a book rather than a scientific paper) a recent meta analysis of several hundred IQ tests is:
Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Approach by Richard Lynn.
In this book he analyses 10 genetic clusters: Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen, South Asians and North Africans, Southeast Asians, Australian Aborigines, Pacific Islanders, East Asians, Arctic Peoples, and Native American Indians.
His definition of race is a breeding population that is to some degree genetically different from neighboring populations as a result of geographical isolation, cultural factors, and endogamy, and which shows observable patterns of genotypic frequency differences for a number of intercorrelated, genetically determined characteristics, compared with other breeding populations.
He acepts the definition of intelligence is the ability "to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought"
His conclusion was that intelligence was roughly 50% due to genetics and 50% due to environment, and that over the course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups, and the incidence of genetic diseases. To have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race.
Now some people allege that Richard Lynn and his publishers are 'racists', and I'm sure that we could all argue about the interpretation of the data. However there is a huge amount of data in the analysis which suggests to me that there is more than just wishful thinking going on. There are some interesting pro and con reviews of the book on the web, or you could even buy or borrow the book yourselves...
My opinion, as before, is that individuals should be appreciated for their own capabilities (more than just intelligence), and should not be judged by the averages of their genetic cluster. The importance of the scientific data (once proven) is to provide sound information for the political debate.
I am arguing from culture and not from genetics as a driver for academic values and achievement which cause I.Q. test scores to go up.
Then you're off-topic and addressing a strawman. It's odd that you talk about my political correctness, since I haven't said anything one way or the other about cultural habits affecting IQ scores; I'm just talking about genetic factors vs. "environmental" factors, where that's everything not genetic. However, I will say that if you think that racial bias has nothing to do with it, that it's entirely a matter of "internal" cultural factors, then you're a fool.
Not that I would be the one to know what are you hinting at, or to make any assumptions based on a single slip of your tongue, but you sound acutely familiar with that scenario, young blabbermouth. And what experience exactly might you have of that peculiar position?
The article you linked only mentions Flynn finding flaws within one specific comparison of IQ scores. The post Flynn world seems to be replete with studies showing East/North East Asians exceeding causcasian testing levels.
If the presumption is that a "race" (however defined) has a preponderance of shared genetics, and if intelligence is determined by genetics
It's only partially determined by genetics.
then there should be more difference between races (however defined) than within a race (however defined) because presumably that "race" is more genetically homogeneous. This is not observed. The hypothesis that the difference in intelligence (however measured) between races (however defined) is due to genetics is thus proven false.
I don't think so. The "difference ... within a race" is seen in the bell curve distribution for members of that race; the difference between races is a difference between the averages for the races. Comparing these is comparing apples and oranges. You could have an arbitrarily large variation in intelligence within race due to the many factors, genetic and environmental, that contribute to intelligence, while having an arbitrarily small difference in the averages between races due to differing environmental factors plus some difference in the distribution alleles for each race.
Another large factor is the assumption that a "race" (however defined) is to some extent genetically homogeneous. If a "race" isn't genetically homogeneous, it makes no sense to lump them together as a group and then impute genetically differences to that group.
So I've argued, but it's important to consider "the Lewontin fallacy". Note what I wrote above about "some difference in the distribution alleles for each race". Surely there is some such difference, regardless of whether races are homogenous. To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy
So the hypothesis that the difference in intelligence (however measured) between races (however defined) is in part due to genetics remains unfalsified; presumably, if we could perfectly control for environment, there would remain some difference in the averages between races at any moment in time. But we have no idea what the magnitude or sign of those differences would be, and no reason to think that it correlates to currently observed differences, nor is there any reason to think that such difference in averages tells us anything about any individual in the group, since the groups aren't homogenous. The assumption that there is such correlation, with no evidence to support it, is unwarranted, and we know historically that the assumption is often motivated by racism; and the attachment of statistical differences between races to individual members of races is bigotry.
If the circumstances of black Americans are, as you claim, due to cultural factors, then the genetic ideologues' statements are completely wrong.
Only if they are entirely cultural, I would think; genetic, cultural, and socioeconomic factors could all play a role. But assigning the currently observed differences to any of these factors without a scientific basis for doing so is ideological.
Additionally, while a disinclination toward hard work probably explains the circumstances of many individual black people
As well as many individual Croatians, many individual redheads, many individual lefthanded people, etc.
A friend of mine once told me of being a young man driving with some buddies past some people bent over working in a field, and they laughed at the "lazy Mexicans". He was embarrassed about his foolishness in clinging to a stereotype while ignoring the facts in front of him; too bad so many people aren't.
"Yo Momma"'s original phrasing, taken literally, implied that he did believe the present discrepancy was entirely cultural, by claiming that if the cultural factors were corrected the problem would cease.
Yes. I was attempting to preempt, by acknowledging the underlying fact (some black people are lazy; as you pointed out, that's true of all groups) and identifying as irrelevant, the anticipated use of anecdotes about individual members of a given race who fit the stereotype.
People keep asking for data to back up the claim that intelligence may vary between genetic clusters.
No, no one is asking for that; it is widely recognized that there are such differences.
His conclusion was that intelligence was roughly 50% due to genetics and 50% due to environment
This gives us the contribution of these factors to the intelligence of individuals; it tells us nothing about the causes of the observed statistical differences between the groups.
To have identical genotypes for intelligence, is so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda to deny the importance of race.
This strawman has been addressed many times in this thread. It is those who don't understand why it is a strawman who are ignorant of basic principles. The question is, once again, what is the contribution of the difference in genotypes to the observed statistical differences between races. The political agenda is in those who insist that somehow a genetic component of intelligence tells us that the 15% gap between whites and blacks is due to genetic factors -- it doesn't tell us that. And a further political agenda is displayed by those like Engineer-Poet who claim that genetic factors of intelligence tell us that social programs to deal with gaps are futile -- it most certainly doesn't tell us that. So, just what is the importance of race?
Now some people allege that Richard Lynn and his publishers are 'racists
Has anyone here done that?
The importance of the scientific data (once proven) is to provide sound information for the political debate.
What political debate is that, and how does this data contribute to it? If you think that, say, Lynn's data can serve as a justification to end affirmative action, you're wrong.
The article you linked only mentions Flynn finding flaws within one specific comparison of IQ scores.
He found flaws in the data from which the conclusion was drawn.
The post Flynn world seems to be replete with studies showing East/North East Asians exceeding causcasian testing levels.
Citations?
"Yo Momma"'s original phrasing, taken literally, implied that he did believe the present discrepancy was entirely cultural, by claiming that if the cultural factors were corrected the problem would cease.
All I see is "Black I.Q. test scores will go up when ..."; nothing about "the problem" ceasing.
Re: citations.
Nothing but what a few minutes of googling for various combinations of asian, caucausian, iq, racial and the like will get you. Reading your linked article was probably the single longest period of time I have spent pondering IQ scores and their grander meaning. (other than laughing my ass off at Dave Scot's grandiose claims of hyperintelligence)
Amen. The maternal side of my family has a small farm in Southern Idaho. Several years working there thoroughly kills any errant thought that farm work, especially the manual variety, would possibly be done by anyone for whom lazy could describe. Ditto for what I know of butchering and housekeeping. (being the other two legs of the migrant worker cliche trifecta)
Richard Lynn IS a racist and his "scientific" conclusions are laughable. Lynn is extreme even within the realm of so-called "race realism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Lynn has spoken at conferences of American Renaissance, an ultra-racist white nationalist organization. Don't boo-hoo about calling a racist a fellow who speaks at American Renaissance conferences. Unsurprisingly, Lynn is also on the board of the racist Pioneer Fund. His books include 'Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations' and 'Eugenics: A Reassessment.'
Lynn preposterously claims that mean IQ estimates of African populations in the 70s (!) are a) reasonable measures of cognitive ability and b) partly reflective of genetic differences.
Another "race realist" figure as ridiculous as Lynn is JP Rushton.
By the way, 'accelerated human evolution'
coauthor Henry Harpending wrote this in 1996 in Evolutionary Anthropology: "Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior...is an attempt to understand ... differences in terms of life-history evolution....Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton's framework is essentially the only game in town."
Frankly, I'm baffled. I guess even really bright guys are capable of making dopey statements.
Yeah, that experiment already happened with the Irish, except for an extra 800 years. Blacks need to quit their bitching and just get their shit together already.
Wow, truth machine and azkyroth got jacked! I love it when white people are filled with white guilt. More power to the reality club.
"White guilt" is kind of an advanced concept for someone young and naive enough to say "got jacked" in a serious debate, isn't it?
It's a pity you've no acquaintance with the reality club. You could use a good smack with it.
I will, once again, challenge those who argue for significant genetic contributions to differences in "racial" intelligence to explain how it is that Black IQ scores have risen so much relative to Whites in the past three decades, and furthermore to explain how it is that all IQ scores have risen, and finally to explain, given those facts, why we should be listening to them.
Wow, truth machine and azkyroth got jacked! I love it when white people are filled with white guilt.
Perhaps you could explain what makes you think I "got jacked" or am feeling guilty about anything. As far as I can tell from your comment, you're suffering from an extreme IQ gap relative to the rest of the population.
Yeah, that experiment already happened with the Irish, except for an extra 800 years. Blacks need to quit their bitching and just get their shit together already.
Another low IQ contributor.
Really? I would have figured Low Middle Range of Middle School, based on his comment.
"a disinclination toward hard work probably explains the circumstances of many individual black people"- Azkyroth
"Intelligence could be 99% heritable and the statistical differences between races could still be 100% due to environmental factors."- Truth Machine
"I would think; genetic, cultural, and socioeconomic factors could all play a role". Truth Machine
Who are the childish fools? You boys should go to your rooms! Get your heads straight you myopic self haters.
"Another low IQ contributor."
So what you're saying is that since I pointed out that the Irish were subjugated and then discriminated against for a long period of time and now have now become a highly successful group regardless, I'm stupid? I may have been a dick about it, but that doesn't mean I have a low IQ.
Funny shit! truth machine and azkyroth are such obsessive compulsive followers. Contort, contradict, beyond all possible geometry and class. They will take a long time to mature if ever. The small minded is a PC idiot while claiming not to be. The PC award and immaturity award goes to the contradictor truth machine.
Child, you're using all those big words like you don't know what they mean. Any evidence to support your claims? Didn't think so.
Also, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
that doesn't mean I have a low IQ
It was more your second sentence that suggests that.
Who are the childish fools?
You and giantazian, at least.
Only one problem with this idea: Slavery and discrimination of blacks is well behind us, and yet, blacks STILL score 1 standard deviation below whites on IQ tests. And when you imply that blacks perform poorly (to a certain degree) because IQ tests are "designed" by whites, what exactly do you mean? Did whites "design" modern scientific and mathematics ideas, or did careful research by them bring these ideas into the open? Would black "designed" math and science be any different than the math and science we see and use today? There probably is a genetic basis for IQ, so what are you so afraid of?
Richard Lynn IS a racist and his "scientific" conclusions are laughable. Lynn is extreme even within the realm of so-called "race realism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn
Don't boo-hoo about calling a racist a fellow who speaks at American Renaissance conferences. Unsurprisingly, Lynn is also on the board of the racist Pioneer Fund. His books include 'Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations' and 'Eugenics: A Reassessment.'
Lynn preposterously claims that mean IQ estimates of African populations in the 70s (!) are a) reasonable measures of cognitive ability and b) partly reflective of genetic differences.
Another "race realist" figure as ridiculous as Lynn is JP Rushton.
By the way, 'accelerated human evolution'
coauthor Henry Harpending wrote this in 1996 in Evolutionary Anthropology: "Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior...is an attempt to understand ... differences in terms of life-history evolution....Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton's framework is essentially the only game in town."
Frankly, I'm baffled. I guess even really bright guys are capable of making dopey statements.
Posted by: Colugo | December 30, 2007 8:44 PM
#250Yeah, that experiment already happened with the Irish, except for an extra 800 years. Blacks need to quit their bitching and just get their shit together already.
Posted by: Hugh | December 31, 2007 2:40 AM
"Lynn has spoken at conferences of American Renaissance, an ultra-racist white nationalist organization."
American Renaissance is not an "ultra-racist" organisation as you suggest. I have been to the site and find the posters there, for the most part, to be ariculate, educated, and concerned about the present demographic trends being experienced in the US more than anything else. At the very least you could be accused of exaggerating which, of course, makes you lose credibility.
Slavery is behind us; discrimination against blacks is not, unless you limit "discrimination" not just only to legal sanctions, but only to legal sanctions that overtly refer to race. (As was explained earlier in the thread). Speaking of ignorance...
What they mean is, among other things, that the time it takes a person to answer, as I understand it, figures into their IQ score on at least some of those tests, and it will take a person longer to figure out what the question is asking when it uses terms and refers to situations with which he or she is not familiar, having grown up around people who generally don't speak that way and having not encountered those situations in daily life. Things like that will skew results.
The potentially disastrous social consequences of idiots acting on the cannot-possibly-be-an-honest mistake of assuming that the heritability of IQ on an individual level means that average differences between groups that do not represent a single population must also be hereditary? (As was explained earlier in the thread).
Are you pig-ignorant enough to believe that a person who is articulate and sounds educated and sincere cannot be an "ultra-racist?" At the risk of Godwinning the thread, have you ever read a passage from Mein Kampf?
Unlike, say, being dumb enough to mistake style for substance, and to mindlessly regurgitate arguments that were made, examined, and found wanting much earlier in the thread.
Expat Onlooker:
I'm sorry, you must have missed the multiple times it was pointed out that "black" IQ scores have gone up significantly compared to "whites" over less than a generation, and that overall IQ scores have increased significantly -- I would be delighted if you could point us all here to a genetic account of that change.
discrimination of blacks is well behind us
Another low IQ contributor.
There probably is a genetic basis for IQ, so what are you so afraid of?
Yes, there probably is. If you had higher IQ you might understand why that isn't relevant.
The potentially disastrous social consequences of idiots acting on the cannot-possibly-be-an-honest mistake of assuming that the heritability of IQ on an individual level means that average differences between groups that do not represent a single population must also be hereditary? (As was explained earlier in the thread).
Honest mistake or not (I think many people just don't have the cognitive skills to understand the distinction), the assumption is racist. Racism resulting from stupidity isn't any less racist.
As for social consequences -- a genetic basis for differences between groups is not at all a reason not to implement social policies that close the gaps between those groups. As The Bell Curve argues, closing such gaps is a good in itself.
True. However, a desire not to implement such policies seems to be the driving motive for those advocates of a genetic basis for the racial differences whose motivations begin but do not end with self-gratification in their supposed superiority, and in fact an alarming number of people seem to blithely assume that "it's inherent" translates to "we shouldn't do anything about it."
("It's inherent" being interchangeable with "it has a biological basis", the specific area of applicability being any kind of visible difference between people, especially in cognitive or behavioral terms, but extending well beyond racial differences).
However, a desire not to implement such policies seems to be the driving motive ...
I agree.
in fact an alarming number of people seem to blithely assume that "it's inherent" translates to "we shouldn't do anything about it."
I agree.
BTW, one reason I like to tweak the racists by accusing them of having low IQs is to make a point that they don't seem able to grasp. Even if the average IQ of whites were 50 points above that of blacks, that still wouldn't mean that these individuals are intelligent. To put in terms they might understand: "If whites are so much smarter than blacks, then why are you so dumb? And if you don't think you're dumb, what about your dumb cousin?" Perhaps if they could grasp it in terms of a single individual, they could grasp that "the average IQ of whites is greater than the average IQ of blacks" means something very much different from "whites have higher IQs than blacks".
Expat Onlooker: "American Renaissance is not an "ultra-racist" organisation as you suggest."
The New Nationalist Music: Adolescent rebellion or racial commitment? by Eric Owens, American Renaissance cover story, November 2000:
"However unpleasant much of this music may sound to the older generations, it reaches the MTV generation in a way that books do not. It is all very well for their racially conscious elders to write carefully-footnoted research papers about immigration or IQ, but they have been doing this for years with few results."
The article then provides lyrics by white nationalist bands including neo-Nazi skinhead groups Skrewdriver and Brutal Attack.
Twelve Years of American Renaissance: An editor's reflections by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, November 2002:
"AR's purpose has always been to recall to whites their legitimate and even noble interests as a race, to reinstill in them a consciousness of race without which they cannot survive as a race. ...
(I)f whites defended their collective interests as actively as other races defend theirs, we would close the country to non-Europeans, expel all illegals, and repeal the anti-discrimination laws that make it impossible to maintain the character of neighborhoods and institutions. ...
Even after 300 years, the mass of blacks are still not Americans in the sense whites are ... (M)yths about race encourage interracial sex and miscegenation...
...(W)e must continue to use the nearly as conclusive data gathered by researchers like Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Michael Levin, Linda Gottfredson, Charles Murray, and Robert Gordon."
At the very least you could be accused of exaggerating which, of course, makes you lose credibility.
I would think that defending an ultra-racist organization and denying that it is one is more likely to do that.
"Slavery is behind us; discrimination against blacks is not, unless you limit "discrimination" not just only to legal sanctions, but only to legal sanctions that overtly refer to race. (As was explained earlier in the thread). Speaking of ignorance..."
Discrimination against blacks is not? Funny, but I that that AA (Affirmitive Action), job quotas, etc, are there to service blacks. I don't recall ever seeing a black discriminated against just because he or she was black. Can you give me a clear example of how blacks are discriminated against in this day and age?
"What they mean is, among other things, that the time it takes a person to answer, as I understand it, figures into their IQ score on at least some of those tests, and it will take a person longer to figure out what the question is asking when it uses terms and refers to situations with which he or she is not familiar, having grown up around people who generally don't speak that way and having not encountered those situations in daily life. Things like that will skew results."
The above is vague, poor excuse-making. Do you think, for example, that none of us, when studying mechanical engineering or business administration, have to learn any jargon that is presented? How silly of you. As far as I know, the average American black has been speaking English as a first language since an early age, so your argument here is absolutely ridiculous. What particular dialect of English, in your opinion, should we present to Americans blacks so that their ability to score well on IQ tests can be enhanced?
"The potentially disastrous social consequences of idiots acting on the cannot-possibly-be-an-honest mistake of assuming that the heritability of IQ on an individual level means that average differences between groups that do not represent a single population must also be hereditary? (As was explained earlier in the thread)."
"The potential disastrous social consequences..."
I see you have unwittingly let the proverbial cat out of the bag, ace. I think that no one can seriously question the fact that whites, on average, are more intelligent than blacks, but that, of course, never WAS the point. "The potential disastrous social consequences" has always been the concern of those defenders (such as you) of egalitarian ideology. How pathetic it most be to have to build a moral foundation based on intellectual dishonesty.
American Renaissance is not an "ultra-racist" organisation as you suggest. I have been to the site and find the posters there, for the most part, to be ariculate, educated, and concerned about the present demographic trends being experienced in the US more than anything else.
"Are you pig-ignorant enough to believe that a person who is articulate and sounds educated and sincere cannot be an "ultra-racist?" At the risk of Godwinning the thread, have you ever read a passage from Mein Kampf?"
You are assuming a lot here, ace. I encourage you or anyone else here to log on to amren.com and come back and explain to the rest of of just how American Renaissance is an "ultra-racist" organisation. And remember that I'm not necesssarily siding with that organisation. I'm just sick of spineless cowards who almost always resort to namecalling to try to get a point across. Just remember: Any 6-year-old can shout "racist" or "bigot", so do yourself a favour yourself and act a little older than a 1st-grader.
Slavery and discrimination of blacks is well behind us, and yet, blacks STILL score 1 standard deviation below whites on IQ tests [...] There probably is a genetic basis for IQ
"I'm sorry, you must have missed the multiple times it was pointed out that "black" IQ scores have gone up significantly compared to "whites" over less than a generation, and that overall IQ scores have increased significantly -- I would be delighted if you could point us all here to a genetic account of that change."
"I would be delighted if you could point us all here to a genetic account of that change."
Watered down IQ tests, perhaps? And I would be equally delighted if you would google "SAT Scores 2007" and come back and tell us what you find. I would like to know of ONE SINGLE STATE where American blacks outscored whites (or any other racial/ethnic group, for that matter) on their SATs. Can you do this for us?
Watered down IQ tests, perhaps?
Did someone say "intellectual dishonesty"?
And I would be equally delighted if you would google "SAT Scores 2007" and come back and tell us what you find. I would like to know of ONE SINGLE STATE where American blacks outscored whites (or any other racial/ethnic group, for that matter) on their SATs.
Is this racist moron really unable to understand the difference between "B is increasing faster than W" and "B is larger that W"?
Expat, don't move the goalpost. You claimed that IQ was genetic, and I pointed out that IQ scores have risen far faster than is accountable by genetics, especially for Blacks. If you are now going to argue post hoc that IQ tests are currently unreliable (without a shred of evidence), then that also questions the reliability of the earlier IQ tests that established the gap you are so fond of noting.
The increases in IQ scores, especially for Blacks, completely undermines your premise of major genetic differences, no matter how you slice it. If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that.
Expat onlooker writes about watered down IQ tests as being a reason for increased IQ scores amongst blacks.
Thereby proving he is in fact a complete idiot who knows nothing about psychometrics, IQ or anything at all. Or perhaps he knows something about the reliability and validity of modern IQ tests. So Mr. Racist Expat cite me the study that shows that modern IQ tests are less reliable and valid then their older counterparts.
These racist shits must be the psychologists equivalent of the intelligent designers for biologists. Completely unable to think critically or deal with actual science, but that's not going to stop them from shouting their idiocy from the top of the trees.
US military intelligence testing during WWI
http://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de-demographie-historique-2002-1-pa…
"For the first time, the army administered mental exams to recruits. The new intelligence tests assigned each man a mental age as a score, and army psychologists wanted to establish a minimum mental age for all types and levels of service (Shaw, Dec. 12, 1917). ...
Blacks draftees from New York ... scored higher than white draftees from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, while black draftees from Illinois could add Alabama and Kentucky to that list. Black conscripts from Ohio received even higher scores, bettering white draftees from all the previously mentioned states as well as Oklahoma, Texas and Tennessee (Yerkes, 1921, 690-91, tables 205, 206)."
If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that.
If he were intellectually honest, he wouldn't be a racist.
Watered down IQ tests, perhaps?
Did someone say "intellectual dishonesty"?
And I would be equally delighted if you would google "SAT Scores 2007" and come back and tell us what you find. I would like to know of ONE SINGLE STATE where American blacks outscored whites (or any other racial/ethnic group, for that matter) on their SATs.
Is this racist moron really unable to understand the difference between "B is increasing faster than W" and "B is larger that W"?
Hardly fair, in my opinion. "Watered down IQ tests" was only a suggestion, and it is impulsive and childish for you to jump in and start tearing away with both talons in such a manner. I would like for you to show me any data that suggests that the IQ gap is closing, for I am sure that if you can, that data will be quite insignificant. And when are you going to graduate to the 2nd grade and stop the silly namecalling? And again: Show me ANY statistics that show that blacks outscore whites on their SATs in ANY state (and ANY year, for that matter). And by the way, ace, I've lived abroad for over 17 years, am married to a non-white, have traveled to 34 countries, and speak 4 languages. I'm hardly what anyone would consider a racist.
Expat, don't move the goalpost. You claimed that IQ was genetic, and I pointed out that IQ scores have risen far faster than is accountable by genetics, especially for Blacks. If you are now going to argue post hoc that IQ tests are currently unreliable (without a shred of evidence), then that also questions the reliability of the earlier IQ tests that established the gap you are so fond of noting.
The increases in IQ scores, especially for Blacks, completely undermines your premise of major genetic differences, no matter how you slice it. If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that.
1) I have never suggested that IQ is SOLELY based on genetic factors, so stop putting words in my mouth. I stated that I believe there does indeed exist a GENETIC BASIS for differences in IQ. I also believe that nutrition and environment also factors that fit into the IQ equation-unlike you clowns who only want to factor in environment (and nutrition?) while dismissing any genetic reasons altogether.
2) Show me any IQ data that indicates that black IQ has increased signicantly.
You people are so ridiculous. I live in Thailand where the ethnic "Thaa Chiew" Chinese dominate over 95% of the economy. It suffices to say that the Chinese here, on average, are more intelligent than the Thais or other ethnic minority groups, and the Chinese dominance here clearly reflects this. The only difference is that the non-Chinese here have no qualms with admitting that this is true, and I both respect and applaud their honesty. They seem to be on a whole other level than you silly little people who crave for a world where we are all intellectually equal.
US military intelligence testing during WWI
http://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de-demographie-historique-2002-1-pa…
"For the first time, the army administered mental exams to recruits. The new intelligence tests assigned each man a mental age as a score, and army psychologists wanted to establish a minimum mental age for all types and levels of service (Shaw, Dec. 12, 1917). ...
Blacks draftees from New York ... scored higher than white draftees from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, while black draftees from Illinois could add Alabama and Kentucky to that list. Black conscripts from Ohio received even higher scores, bettering white draftees from all the previously mentioned states as well as Oklahoma, Texas and Tennessee (Yerkes, 1921, 690-91, tables 205, 206)."
Kudos to your success in finding reliable data that shows that blacks HAVE outscored whites in IQ testing! You must be exhausted from the effort! And just to think: You had to dig under 90 YEARS (or should I say 'around'?) of other IQ data just to hit paydirt!? And to add salt to the wound, you had to choose the poorest, most uneducated southern whites of that era (who had probably never even worn shoes until the age of 16) and match them with blacks from the north who did have some semblance of education under their belts. I thank you sincerely for positing such valuable, concrete, and up-to-date data for all of us here to peruse.
If you were intellectually honest, you would admit that.
If he were intellectually honest, he wouldn't be a racist.
And if you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't have to scream and shout that derogatory word "racist" as part of your argument.
Does Expat Onlooker deserve any response to his questions?
The wit and wisdom of 'Expat Onlooker' of
Bangkok, Thailand:
http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/TK94KVBL31VIEV9FG
"During the segregation era, America didn't suffer from all the social problems it now faces. Maybe segregation was't such a bad idea afterall."
"My grandmother once commented that blacks, when in small groups, behave very well when in the presence of whites. But when in large groups they become boisterous and belligerent. How true. Take any wild animal out of its natural habitat and it will have trouble adapting."
http://www.topix.net/forum/blogs/T65LBGNSK1BG8BD72/p53
"Black, as a collective group, are generally very poor performers, and their work ethic is, to say the least, very dubious. No matter how charismatic and qualified a potential black presidential candidate might appear on the surface, there is always that underlying dread that, once elected, he will run amok, and thoroughly abuse his executive power. This cannot be allowed at the highest level of government."
http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/T65LBGNSK1BG8BD72/p60
"Do I care about the health of my race? Yes, because as a realist, I HAVE to. It is part of my biological reality. Am I a race traitor? Perhaps. Did I marry into the east asian tribe? No. Did I marry my wife because she was asian? Of course not. Do I consider interracial couples an abomination? It depends."
http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/TC24SVMI2J9J326C1/p24
"... I know you have posed the question as to just how Jews were able to infiltrate the American power-base and politics but, to be honest, it would take volumes of writing space to explain that to you. It is that complex. Again, you can read Kevin McDonald's works regarding the matter. He is an articulate author, and his knowledge of the matter is very informative.
5) No need to worry. Your country (and China) will very soon have first-hand knowledge of just how Jews can manipulate a society in a way that will benefit them."
"I don't "hate" Jews. I, however, don't like them either. Yes, I do think the Zionists have a plan to "take over the world". Such concepts as "globalisation", "multi-culturalism", and "diversity" are all components of that plan, and this plan is specifically a Jewish creation. The Boasian school of thought proves that. When (not if) world Jewry finally achieves its goal of dominating the Asian continent to the extent that it now dominates Europe and America, among others, their reign of global dominance has begun."
Expat onlooker writes about watered down IQ tests as being a reason for increased IQ scores amongst blacks.
Thereby proving he is in fact a complete idiot who knows nothing about psychometrics, IQ or anything at all. Or perhaps he knows something about the reliability and validity of modern IQ tests.
"So Mr. Racist Expat cite me the study that shows that modern IQ tests are less reliable and valid then their older counterparts."
That was only a suggestion, you silly little man. Read my above posts. And besides, why does it matter? If black IQ is rising, so be it. Why should I care? I am, however, quite confident that whites, in general, are noticeably more intelligent than blacks. As a matter of fact, this simple truth was never a point of debate until only recently, and in years past the blacks themselves wouldn't even argue what they considered to be the obvious. Maybe the answer for you silly little people is miscegenation. That would probably yield the results you so desire quite quickly. The only trick is trying to convince the 97% of all couples who prefer homogenous relationships that interracial marriage is something to be embraced. Oops! I had almost forgotten that this effort has been underway for quite some time...without yielding any laudable results.
In other words, no, he has nothing to add to this conversation.
And if you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't have to scream and shout that derogatory word "racist" as part of your argument.
No, actually, I would have to be intellectually dishonest not to recognize that you're a racist.
Did he really say "miscegenation"?
I am, however, quite confident that whites, in general, are noticeably more intelligent than blacks.
And yet you personally are less intelligent than millions of blacks.
...combined. :P
Um, Azkyroth, I don't think you thought about that carefully before posting it. Do the math.
Yes, he did.
I thank any number of non-existent deities that I'm not the "non-white" that peckerwood goes home to at night.
Certainly:
"It is often asserted that blacks have made no IQ gains on whites, despite relative environmental gains, and that this adds credibility to the case that the black/white IQ gap has genetic origins. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure black IQ trends. We analyze data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These suggest that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of black cognitive ability."
Is that clear enough for you?
Nope, no way Expat is a racist. Nosiree.
"Does Expat Onlooker deserve any response to his questions?
The wit and wisdom of 'Expat Onlooker' of
Bangkok, Thailand:
http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/TK94KVBL31VIEV9FG
"During the segregation era, America didn't suffer from all the social problems it now faces. Maybe segregation was't such a bad idea afterall."
"My grandmother once commented that blacks, when in small groups, behave very well when in the presence of whites. But when in large groups they become boisterous and belligerent. How true. Take any wild animal out of its natural habitat and it will have trouble adapting."
http://www.topix.net/forum/blogs/T65LBGNSK1BG8BD72/p53
"Black, as a collective group, are generally very poor performers, and their work ethic is, to say the least, very dubious. No matter how charismatic and qualified a potential black presidential candidate might appear on the surface, there is always that underlying dread that, once elected, he will run amok, and thoroughly abuse his executive power. This cannot be allowed at the highest level of government."
http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/T65LBGNSK1BG8BD72/p60
"Do I care about the health of my race? Yes, because as a realist, I HAVE to. It is part of my biological reality. Am I a race traitor? Perhaps. Did I marry into the east asian tribe? No. Did I marry my wife because she was asian? Of course not. Do I consider interracial couples an abomination? It depends."
http://www.topix.com/forum/blogs/TC24SVMI2J9J326C1/p24
"... I know you have posed the question as to just how Jews were able to infiltrate the American power-base and politics but, to be honest, it would take volumes of writing space to explain that to you. It is that complex. Again, you can read Kevin McDonald's works regarding the matter. He is an articulate author, and his knowledge of the matter is very informative.
5) No need to worry. Your country (and China) will very soon have first-hand knowledge of just how Jews can manipulate a society in a way that will benefit them."
"I don't "hate" Jews. I, however, don't like them either. Yes, I do think the Zionists have a plan to "take over the world". Such concepts as "globalisation", "multi-culturalism", and "diversity" are all components of that plan, and this plan is specifically a Jewish creation. The Boasian school of thought proves that. When (not if) world Jewry finally achieves its goal of dominating the Asian continent to the extent that it now dominates Europe and America, among others, their reign of global dominance has begun."
Posted by: Colugo | January 2, 2008 11:54 PM
Your point is? And no, I am not daunted by your effort, little man, of pulling up old posts from another website to try to tarnish my image. This measly effort of yours at character assassination only shows to all the low-life that you really are, and further indicates that you are desperate, and really have no point to argue at all, as what I say is fundamentally correct. Nice try, though.
And if you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't have to scream and shout that derogatory word "racist" as part of your argument.
"No, actually, I would have to be intellectually dishonest not to recognize that you're a racist."
More namecalling. "Racist!" ... "Racist!"... "Racist!"... This is the word that spineless idiots use when they are losing an argument, and oh how the word is overused.
I am, however, quite confident that whites, in general, are noticeably more intelligent than blacks.
"And yet you personally are less intelligent than millions of blacks."
Worldwide? Highly doubtful, but those "millions of blacks" would have to have an IQ noth of 135 if that were the case.
Worldwide? Highly doubtful
Ahem. The larger the sample size, the more likely we can find qualifying samples, dummy.
but those "millions of blacks" would have to have an IQ noth of 135 if that were the case.
I said intelligence, not IQ -- the sort of intelligence you don't display. But even assuming an IQ of 135 ... do the math.
I don't often recommend Ayn Rand, but here is something you might want to read.
Yes, he did.
"I thank any number of non-existent deities that I'm not the "non-white" that peckerwood goes home to at night."
But you liberal, egalitarian types are nothing but the loud, obnoxious minority. Chinese, for one, can be extremely racist and xenophobic, but I don't see you clowns attacking THEM for it. Hmmmm... interesting. And by the way, little man, I provide well for my family, and ours is a healthy, comfortable, and stable family unit. I'm sorry to upset you so, in that I see through the facade of "we are all equal". Physical differences, of course, do exist among the different ethnic/racial groups, and you chumps will never argue that point. But when differences in intellect or cognitive ability is mentioned, the ferocity in which your ilk rush to defend the "we are all equal" myth is utterly amazing. How amateurish and boring you all are, and how boring indeed this world would be if we WERE all "equal". Just keep waiting for that white sprinter to win his first 100 Metre Gold Medal, and keep waiting for the day when will all enjoy the incredible wisdom and insight of a black Steven Hawking. Unfortunately for you, you will be dust long before you can enjoy the experience of these 2 events. Goodbye for now. Sawasdee krap.
Worldwide? Highly doubtful
Ahem. The larger the sample size, the more likely we can find qualifying samples, dummy.
but those "millions of blacks" would have to have an IQ noth of 135 if that were the case.
I said intelligence, not IQ -- the sort of intelligence you don't display. But even assuming an IQ of 135 ... do the math.
I don't often recommend Ayn Rand, but here is something you might want to read.
Even if it were proved -- which it is not -- that the incidence of men of potentially superior brain power is greater among the members of certain races than among the members of others, it would still tell us nothing about any given individual and it would be irrelevant to one's judgment of him. A genius is a genius, regardless of the number of morons who belong to the same race -- and a moron is a moron, regardless of the number of geniuses who share his racial origin.
Posted by: truth machine | January 5, 2008 1:44 AM
"I said intelligence, not IQ...
As if there is any REAL difference. What an ass you are.
And Ayn Rand is absolutely correct, and is only saying what I've known for a long time. 97% of the people in this world, regardless of race or ethnicity (and including YOU), are basically drooling, knuckle-dragging morons anyway. It is only the tiny, smart fraction that makes a difference anyway, as I'm sure you know. And it might please you to know that the ability of a Congonese bushman to survive in his environment when someone like you or I would probably perish in a week is quite commendable. That having been said, I must, to my regret, still insist that there are a lot more smart people in the white "community" than there are in the black "community", and everything I see in my daily life suggests this. What has retarded your thinking to such a point that you just can't acknowledge this. How sad it must be to be you.
Um, Azkyroth, I don't think you thought about that carefully before posting it. Do the math.
Posted by: truth machine | January 3, 2008 12:27 AM
Allow him to allow his idiocy to shine through. It is naturally to him as much as it is amusing to me.
and including YOU
Despite my IQ score 4 s.d. above the mean.
That having been said, I must, to my regret, still insist that there are a lot more smart people in the white "community" than there are in the black "community", and everything I see in my daily life suggests this.
Which, if by "smart" you mean "high IQ" (and you say that one must be an ass to claim otherwise), is a strawman denied by no one, which you would realize if you weren't so functionally stupid.
Alas it would seem that a few cogs in the high-powered "truth machine" engine have failed, thus forcing the man to swerve off his original course. I don't think he knows where to go or what to do. A new countershaft, perhaps? A new 4th gear? He is stuck, and when in such a situation, his only comfort is to attack others personally. Poor little man. Intelligent, but not quite enough so to realize the 4 Noble Truths of the human condition, or that nature can be cruel and unfair, and that it promises us nothing.
Expat Onlooker: Maybe because trying to have a "discussion" with you is like talking to a brick wall. But alas, even you are done being obnoxious and annoying. Thank goodness for small favors. No doubt you are still an embarrassment to humanity though.
But alas, even you are done being obnoxious and annoying.
no, he just renamed himself to Joe Blow and moved to a different thread (the one where he tries to explain what a republican is).
I'd be willing to bet if he plays sockpuppet once more, we'll have yet another inmate.
this makes me wonder, is it possible to isolate the genes which make up intelegence and quantify their results genetically so as not to need IQ tests at all.
though then again how would you quantify the results without an iq test..