At 3/3/13 06:50 PM, poxpower wrote:
Black people in other countries also have lower average IQs, and asian people outside of their origin countries also score higher.
There's two ways to interpet this:
a) black people are naturally inferior to other races as deemed by their genetic code, or
b) black people are statistically more likely to be living in circumstances which result in them performing poorly on IQ tests than aforementioned groups
Which inference are you making here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_
Study
Remember when I said I don't link things I don't read? You should do the same. From that very article:
"In a 1998 article, Scarr wrote: "The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions [...]."
"They argued that, "contrary to Levin's and Lynn's assertions, results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study provide little or no conclusive evidence for genetic influences underlying racial differences in intelligence and achievement," and note that "We think that it is exceedingly implausible that these differences are either entirely genetically based or entirely environmentally based. The true causes of racial-group differences in IQ, or in any other characteristic, are likely to be too complex to be captured by locating them on a single hereditarianism-environmentalism dimension."
This kind of study has been done endless times always with the same results.
Right: inconclusive, at best.
And always this is blamed on racism, which is bullshit as it does not explain
1- Why asians score higher than whites
2- Why children of mixed ethnicity who don't even know they had black parents ( and no one does really ) have lower IQs
I will gladly answer these two points to the best of my ability, but keep in mind that you're the only one in this discussion who's talking about racism. Anyway,
1) Asians don't possess innately superior intellects or anything. It just seems that way because, by and large, only the wealthy and successful people from China and India can immigrate to the United States, so we're only seeing the smartest ~15 million out of billions. This, combined with the strong work ethic present in many Asian cultures that stems from Confucianism and Taoism, creates the perception of a disproportionately intelligent minority.
2) "Flynn then talked about what we've learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children-and that evidence didn't fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn't make a difference whether it's a mixed-race child's mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn't make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children's blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness-of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances. "The mind is much more like a muscle than we've ever realized," Flynn said. "It needs to get cognitive exercise. It's not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark." The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person's mind but the quality of the world that person lives in."
Well have fun reading his rebuttal to Gould.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Gould.pdf
I know all about it, these two have been going at it for years. It's still funny to me that he cited himself 11 times, haha. Gould actually as a counter-rebuttal but I can't find it for the life of me.
He's not the one doing the studies, he just gathers the data.
Data that people admit have the same results that he claims. Where he explains those results by genetics, the others will always use the hand-waving "oh it's just culture/ racism" explanation, citing that it's impossible to control for racism.
You're arguing against things which were never said by me or any source that I linked to you. You keep whining about people being racially sensitive, when everything I showed you attacked the merits of the studies being done in terms of methodology and conclusions. If these studies were conclusive, peer reviewed, and had a vast majority of the scientific community reaching a consensus that the studies were acceptable, then that's a whole 'nother story. But this obviously is not the case, and this is the central theme of my argument.
Again, no clue what that giant wall of text even means.
All I'm seeing is a sad attempt to explain away mass amounts of data by saying they did a couple graphs in the book wrong.
They don't call into question the results or show that they are false or opposite, they just have the same hand-waving explanation that "oh well there's obviously a correlation but maybe not causation".
How do you know this if you're unable to even read what I provided you? Stop refuting what "The Others" are saying about what you have to say, and refute what Rushton's critics are saying. I really don't care what some random Joe Schmoe you've had a conversation thinks about this, this conversation is between me you and the sources we bring to the table, so keep it relevant.
Wtf.
There's obvious political gain to be made by being against Rushton.
And there's no obvious political gain to be made by funding Rushton? Really, I'm curious, what political gain is there to be made by being against Rushton, and how is The Pioneer Fund not a political organization? How did Gould and other gain from politics?
His findings and viewpoints are hugely unpopular.
Yes, they are, because he is a terrible scientist. You seem to be making the assumption that he's actually a great scientist, he's even right, and people unjustly despise him because they're racially sensitive and part of the PC crowd.
Books like Guns, Germs and Steel sell TONS of copies because they reiterate this idea that everyone is really just equal and whatever your lot in life is is due to luck or the oppression of others.
This is just blatantly not true, at all. GG&S sold a lot because it's an interesting book, and you should read it. Jared Diamond never once, not ever, said, implied or reiterated the idea that everyone is equal. He said if there was a difference in intelligence between human populations it would make more sense for primitive hunter gatherers to be more intelligent than high-technology, specialized agricultural societies that had to deal with a smaller range of stimuli and tasks on an individual level. He then went on to explain why there was no reason to posit an intelligence gradient in the first place. The point of the hypothesis was as a counterpoint the notion that Europeans were more intelligent because they had more technology, not as a serious explanatory theory.
