At 7/18/13 04:20 PM, Fim wrote:
I read it, I just don't know what you're getting out of the information that some races have genetically larger genitalia than others, there's no correlation between that and intelligence, just as height, weight, hair colour etc are not factors.
That's because you brought it up to make fun of Rushton saying his penis data was ridiculous.
His critics are the ones making value judgments and putting words in his mouth, mostly because the one data point they hate is the one on intelligence. Everything else they are quite fine with; skin color, bone density, birth rate, age of maturation, bone shape, musculature, height, vulnerability to diseases.
They accept all of it but reject solely the IQ data and the brain size data ( because it correlates to IQ ).
Now what does THAT tell you?
That's the thing, unless you can show me specific evidence for that claim, I don't think that's correct.
Twins share 100% of their DNA while siblings only 50%. Therefore using adoption studies and comparing twins to regular kids you can see exactly which traits vary and which don't according to genetics and how much.
Here is the article on IQ heritability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
The lowball is a .5 correlation ( 50% determined by genes ) and goes as high as 90%.
This is extremely mainstream stuff. I am not aware this is hotly debated in academic circles.
Btw the article I posted on brain size was extremely thorough and detailed and perfectly sourced. What more could you want? You just dismissed it offhand because it mentions Rushton, among others.
It seems to me that all you're doing is asking me for proof, then saying "Nah I don't want to read it, it seems fishy".
Worse, what critics routinely do is as soon as any researcher comes up with the data to prove them wrong, they label them racists and then give themselves a pass to ignore said research because it was "produced by racists".
That's EXACTLY what you have done. You didn't look at Rushton's data you instead went on the net to find how you could call him a racist so that you could then conveniently ignore everything he said and all the data he gathered even if tons of it comes from people who had no interest in interracial studies. Just the simple fact that Rushton puts them in an article is enough for you to ignore it.
"no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test".
I'm sorry but that unsourced line from a wikipedia article is simply not true.
That article is heavily slanted to be PC.
For instance: "The concept of intelligence and the degree to which intelligence is measurable is a matter of debate."
By and large IQ is heavily correlated with all characteristics that people associate with intelligence. The article is trying to give you the impression that people are still wondering if intelligence tests mean anything or not.
Second, they rehash this "The concept of race as a biologically meaningful category of analysis is also hotly contested"
Again it's not "hotly" contested that there are races. DNA analysis can help us retrace ancestry extremely accurately to far-back isolated human populations that did at one time constitute homogeneous race groups.
Just because there's a relatively high rate of mixing today doesn't suddenly invalidate the concept of race.
Sadly for Rushton, the data collected is imperfect because race was determined by the person, the government or the examiner. BUT consider that people can guess what race they are with a high level of accuracy even if it's not as good as DNA.
If you had the money, you could do a DNA analysis of entrants and then measure their IQs. That data would be better than any data we have so far but it's extremely unlikely that it would overturn anything, just as it would be extremely unlikely to overturn the theory of evolution because you suddenly have a time machine and can watch the whole line of your ancestors being born all the way to a fish.
Science is always submissive to factual evidence. Like I've said, if there was legitimate grounds here there would be a wider debate in the scientific community, not just between scientists and people with questionable motives and backgrounds, like Rushton.
Sadly, no. The mere suggestion by an academic ( like Rushton, who studied this before ever receiving money from the pioneer fund ) that this should be studied will get them fired.
Again just look at what you did. You didn't look at Rushton's data BEFORE you concluded he was a racist.
And so it is. If someone asks for a grant on this, they can only get it from sketchy people like the pioneer fund as it would be political poison to any university to support such research.
And mind you, again, that this IS studied in universities in the case of twin studies but if it's applied to race or used to publish a paper on race USING DATA THAT ALREADY EXISTS the researcher will lose his job.
For instance, take the book Freakonomics, a very popular mainstream science book. In it, you will find that they state that HEREDITY is the biggest factor for whether or not a child will commit crimes or achieve good grades.
Like I have mentioned, there are many books like this and many books reporting the 0.8 correlation of heredity figure BUT IF YOU APPLY IT TO RACE then you don't get your book published and you can lose your job.
The 0.8 correlation figure is not very contested nor are the figures on low black academic achievement and high black crime but if you simply connect the dots you are labeled a racist. The stats are there and the twin studies are there but don't dare use them to say the wrong thing about black people even though those things are IMPLIED by the very data.
Here's a thought, because it's often racist? Like saying a black person can't attain an IQ higher than 120.
I've never heard anything Rushton said to be racist. At best you can claim he is wrong. To say he is racist is to say he is purposefully twisting his research and the facts to make certain races look bad, mind you that he praises asians and jews constantly through this same research which you call racist for showing blacks have lowers IQs.
That's quite a peculiar way in which to be racist don't you think?
You linked me a study that quotes Rushton quite heavily right from the start.
And many others.
Reviews by scientists are not personal attacks, scientists have a better insight on his publications than either of us.
All I know of are some book-review type lines from people who have no idea what they're talking about. I've never seen a researcher in the relevant domains refute Rushton's claims or body or evidence. At best they attack the weakest studies or data points, while giving themselves license to ignore all the rest.
I think you're being fairly guilty of doing that yourself. You ignored 11/12 points I made in my first post.
They weren't points, just personal attacks on Rushton that had nothing to do with data.