Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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.

At 3/4/13 12:33 AM, Feoric wrote:

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

Again, this has been controlled for.
Even if you control for nutrition, IQ of adoptive parents, money, level of education etc, the data falls along the exact same lines on many different kinds of tests.

I'd say that culture and racism has been controlled for as well as this data is the same in countries where these people are not minorities and also in countries where the culture is different ( for instance blacks in Germany vs blacks in NYC).

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.

Then why is it that randomly adopted Asian children still score better?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t947989/

http://rense.com/general79/dut.htm
"The best way to assess the effects of culture and socioeconomic status is to look at trans-racial adoptions, which combine one race's genes with another's environment. Among Asian-American kids, biological norms seem to prevail. In one study, kids adopted from Southeast Asia, half of whom had been hospitalized for malnutrition, outscored the U.S. IQ average by 20 points. In another study, kids adopted from Korea outscored the U.S. average by two to 12 points, depending on their degree of malnutrition. In a third study, Korean kids adopted in Belgium outscored the Belgian average by at least 10 points, regardless of their adoptive parents' socioeconomic status."

2) 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.

Actually on that, there were IQ tests for GIs and a lot more of the blacks than the whites failed. The black GIs that were sent over there represent a biased upper echelon sample of IQ.
Ironically, this is even more damning evidence of how important genetics are as, when you actually get all the high IQ blacks people to breed, their children's IQ is higher as well.

The same thing happened to the Ashkenazi Jews who were relegated by society to financial functions and thus their success was heavily dependent on their ability to count, which requires high IQs. Within a few generations, the average IQ of that group became the highest in the world, outperforming even Asians today.

Again, it's a completely foolish nothing to think that intelligence couldn't be selected for. After all, no one could possibly ever deny that humans are a case study in a species selected for intelligence. No one questions that we are smarter than zebras.

But for some reason, the notion that groups of humans could be smarter than other groups is crazy?

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.

Hum alright you can cling to that but the balance is steadily shifting towards the "nature" side as the evidence grows every year.

and refute what Rushton's critics are saying.

I have no idea what he's talking about honestly. They're both spouting methodological gibberish at each other. Instead of wasting my time bogging myself down in that, I just looked for more data and I can't find any that goes against what they say really. I listened to the debate between Rushton and Suzuki, again, same thing, no rebuttal by Suzuki, all he does is claim that the data is bad or not conclusive enough ( he doesn't show this mind you, he just claims other people have shown it ) and then moves on to call Rushton a racist for 30 minutes.

And I can see a similar trend here with this exchange whereby Gould and him are not debating the results but merely debating the important of nurture vs nature. I assume Gould claims that all things being equal, all races would do the same, which is completely unlikely as far as I can see. It makes sense neither in terms of biology, history or world politics. Just using Occam's razor makes it pretty clear and tempting to suggest that nature has a big effect to play, but the PC patrol will always claim that there's not enough data to make such unsettling claims.

Not really sure what gains you think there are to make by supporting Rushton.
All he ever got for his troubles was being called a horrible eugenist / racist and being shat on by other scientists.

There's not such much to gain in opposing him as there is to lose by supporting him. If you're a scientist and your career and grants depend on your name, why would you ever associate yourself with him or his ideas? No one's going to fund a paper about eugenics. It's massively politically unpopular, but that is changing I suspect.

As for the pioneer fund, it's entirely your opinion that what they are doing is racist or bad. That their mere interest in highly controversial fields of ethics or research somehow proves that they're illegitimate and racist.

If you haven't seen the Suzuki, I suggest you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

Those audience members who ask questions at the end are borderline retarded lol.

At 3/4/13 01:30 AM, poxpower wrote: Again, this has been controlled for.
Even if you control for nutrition, IQ of adoptive parents, money, level of education etc, the data falls along the exact same lines on many different kinds of tests.

I'd say that culture and racism has been controlled for as well as this data is the same in countries where these people are not minorities and also in countries where the culture is different ( for instance blacks in Germany vs blacks in NYC).

There's no way you can control for that without significantly slanting your data to the point of it being meaningless. How do you control for such extremely complex issues like racism and culture for example? How do you explain that some researchers use the statistic difference represented in black youth as a sign that they are genetically inferior and that the amount they score lower matches the scores for minority groups elsewhere in the world, and that black people in the UK do not match the same lower scores? The data is not conclusive at all, it's actually all over the place.

Then why is it that randomly adopted Asian children still score better?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t947989/

I....what? Are you trolling me here or something? You're linking me a thread on...Stormfront? A white supremacist forum? This thread was created by a user named "White Federalist" in a forum with the description called "Genetics, eugenics, racial science and related subjects." lmao. You're just fucking with me, right?

Anyway, I tried to at least skim that PDF posted but the quality is fucking horrible, it's like someone took a picture of the report with an iPhone during a blackout or something. It's too dark and blurry for me to read the damn thing without giving me a headache. I tried googling the text in the OP but it just brought me back to the thread...on Stormfront...

http://rense.com/general79/dut.htm

Oh no! Another rebuttal!

"Saletan places faith in an in-depth task force report from the American Psychological Association, titled "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns," dating from 1996. The task force, Saletan admits, "doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence." Saletan's rapid summary makes it sound as though the task force drew the necessary dots, then, experiencing a failure of nerve, refused to connect them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The APA made its conclusions absolutely clear: There is some inconclusive evidence that culture factors account for the IQ gap between blacks and whites, and there is "even less empirical support for a genetic explanation.""

Actually on that, there were IQ tests for GIs and a lot more of the blacks than the whites failed.

Not surprising in the least, blacks back then were actually living in an overtly racist society, where them getting a formal education was a pipe dream for most. Considering the fact that IQ testing and education are strongly linked I wouldn't suspect otherwise. That's saying nothing about IQ testing in general, which is touched upon by Gould in The Mismeasure of Man. Let's take a look at some actual multiple-choice questions from the original US Army IQ test of 1916, which was given impartially to educated officer-types and barely-literate black privates, some of whom had never held a pencil in their hands before, and later on to immigrants fresh off the boat:

"How many legs does a Kaffir have? 2, 4, 6 or 8?
Crisco is a famous brand of tooth-powder, washing soap, cooking fat, or automobile?
Christy Mathewson is famous as a general, a journalist, an actor, or a baseball player?"

Does this seem impartial to you? The people who set these questions seemed to honestly believe that your answers to them would give a measure of your innate intelligence as opposed to your exposure to and familiarity with American culture (among other things, they were shocked when the average Eastern European immigrant scored something like 60 on the test). An impartial IQ would have to be extremely carefully designed in order to iron out all the sources of cultural familiarity/unfamiliarity that would skew the results. In fact, I don't think it would even be possible to design an IQ test that could be used for all nations, directly translating it.

The black GIs that were sent over there represent a biased upper echelon sample of IQ.

Source?

The same thing happened to the Ashkenazi Jews who were relegated by society to financial functions and thus their success was heavily dependent on their ability to count, which requires high IQs. Within a few generations, the average IQ of that group became the highest in the world, outperforming even Asians today.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Which came first, the high IQ or the counting ability? Well it's neither, really - Ashkenazi Jews are prone to Tay-Sachs, and I remember reading a study done ages ago that showed significant evidence that the gene responsible for Tay-Sachs in homozygous form was beneficial to brain maturation in heterozygous form. So yeah, I think this is an instance is where you'd actually be correct: Ashkenazi have a statistically higher intelligence (compared with the rest of the IQ-test-taking population) and that this is linked to heterozygous carriers of oft-deadly, growth-based neurological disorders. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me, I'll pass.

But for some reason, the notion that groups of humans could be smarter than other groups is crazy?

I'm not saying that, or saying that the idea is absurd. I'm saying that every study I have ever seen on the subject has horribly sloppy methodology, funded by controversial thinktanks, based on methodology seen in previously published research papers and books that have been viciously criticized by scientists in the field, not peer reviewed, dubiously omits or conceals dissenting data points by hiding them in footnotes nobody reads wrapped in technical jargon, and propagated by actual no-joke white supremacists like we saw in the thread you linked on Stormfront (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that).

I have no idea what he's talking about honestly. They're both spouting methodological gibberish at each other. Instead of wasting my time bogging myself down in that, I just looked for more data and I can't find any that goes against what they say really.

It's not that hard to understand, imo, and I have no official training in social science. Perhaps I have the anthropology gene.

Not really sure what gains you think there are to make by supporting Rushton.
All he ever got for his troubles was being called a horrible eugenist / racist and being shat on by other scientists.

There's not such much to gain in opposing him as there is to lose by supporting him.

Wait a second:

There's obvious political gain to be made by being against Rushton.

Which one is it?

As for the pioneer fund, it's entirely your opinion that what they are doing is racist or bad. That their mere interest in highly controversial fields of ethics or research somehow proves that they're illegitimate and racist.

Their track record is well document and is not a matter of opinion.

At 3/2/13 09:15 PM, poxpower wrote: Sooooooooooo.... should the US be able to do military action there? If you kill people in those countries, chances are high that you just killed a mentally retarded person.

Has it ever occurred to you Americans that you can't F***ING wage war anytime and anywhere you feel like it? Also, mentally retarded people have a right to live as well. They didn't do anything to you did they?

At 3/4/13 03:29 AM, Feoric wrote:

I....what? Are you trolling me here or something?

Again, ad hominem.
That's all these people do anyway, I haven't seen a single "rebuttal" of Rushton / Flynn / Jensen that isn't about half dedicated to calling them secret racists.

http://rense.com/general79/dut.htm

Oh no! Another rebuttal!

The word "asian" isn't even anywhere in there. All I see is more ad hominems and more "oh I think the data just isn't good enough" crap.

It's never "the data is wrong" it's always "Well it's probably.. not conclusive enough..yeaaaah ALSO THEY'RE RACIST!!!".
That article is EMBARRASSING honestly.

I listened to this last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNU7Y2oZh7k
Really good discussion on this and the data.

Not surprising in the least, blacks back then were actually living in an overtly racist society

The black GIs that were sent over there represent a biased upper echelon sample of IQ.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyferth_study
" since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces."

You see then that whether or not the cultural hypothesis is true, this is a tainted sample.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Which came first, the high IQ or the counting ability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#History_of_Jews_
in_Europe_before_the_Ashkenazim
I see nothing in their history that suggests they were particularly smart or good with numbers until this small number of them moved to Europe a few hundred years ago and were presented with an opportunity to fill the financial sector which the Christians did not want to fill for religious reasons.
The root genetic pool of the Jews is the same as other middle eastern culture who don't rank particularly high on IQ tests.

that this is linked to heterozygous carriers of oft-deadly, growth-based neurological disorders. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me, I'll pass.

Whether or not intelligence or extreme intelligence is beneficial is a different subject.

It's not that hard to understand, imo, and I have no official training in social science. Perhaps I have the anthropology gene.

I'm not a statistician and they seem to be debating graph-making.
I do not have the math background to go check how they are all making their graphs and arriving at the correlation coefficients. One guy says it's one thing, the other guy says it's more or less etc.

Seems to me they're both stretching in their own direction, one stretching the meanings to always pull way more towards genes and the other to stretch way more towards culture and environment.

Wait a second:

There's obvious political gain to be made by being against Rushton.

Which one is it?

I guess not losing is a gain?
Haha. Like, you can't lose politically if you're against him. If you're a scientist or a politician and you encounter his arguments, you'll always side against him no matter what.

Their track record is well document and is not a matter of opinion.

There's a bunch of racists in them, but again it's entirely your opinion that it's bad or inherently racist to choose to fun research in those certain areas that deal with race or eugenics.
Have they been shown to be dishonest with their results? I don't see criticism of their science, just endless waves of attacks at the implications of it or the motives behind their curiosity of certain subjects.

Weaksauce.

At 3/4/13 11:13 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Has it occurred to you that the U.N. peace keeping forces usually refers to the U.S. military?

As if that "peace keeping" was to be taken seriously.

At 3/2/13 09:15 PM, poxpower wrote: 7 countries have an average IQ lower than what the USA considers mentally retarded:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-low est-average-iq/
So I say, it's wrong to kill them because according to the USA's own metric for who's too stupid to kill, most of them are :D
In fact, we should sell no weapons to those countries either.

Is this your OP?
"HURR DURR STATISTIZ SAY RETARDED COURTRIES R BLECK COURTRIES HAHA BLECK LOW IQ WITE POWR"

Well poxpower speaking as a black person apparently way smarter than you I think I should tell you that statistics can always be analyzed to prove a different conclusion, be proven wrong or faulty, or proven to be inconclusive.
For instance when racists like you shove IQ numbers in our face and heavily and excitedly breathe out the words "BLACKS HAV LOWR IQ WE TOLD U SO...", we can tell you IQ numbers can be greatly effected by poverty and socio-economic status to the point where genetics play practically no role at all.
We can tell you that the testing itself is biased and flawed as well http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/hcr/2001/nonfiction/
testbias.htm, and that there is direct evidence conflicting with the traditional race view point such as Nigerian Immigrant educational achievement.

You also ignore the Flynn effect which knees the credibility of IQ tests as a whole,
http://pcp.lanl.gov/FLYNNEFF.html
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_
nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ729986&ERICExtSear ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ729986
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741743

As well as IQ disparities within relatively racially stable populations
http://theslittyeye.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/iq-geography-in -china/
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx

I think your next stunt should be doing leapfrog with a shoebox in a busy highway intersection, I'm pretty sure your parents will approve if you go upstairs and ask them.

At 3/4/13 02:02 PM, naronic wrote:

For instance when racists like you shove IQ numbers in our face and heavily and excitedly breathe out the words "BLACKS HAV LOWR IQ WE TOLD U SO...", we can tell you IQ numbers can be greatly effected by poverty and socio-economic status to the point where genetics play practically no role at all.

"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."

We can tell you that the testing itself is biased and flawed as well http://www.southernct.edu/organizations/hcr/2001/nonfiction/
testbias.htm, and that there is direct evidence conflicting with the traditional race view point such as Nigerian Immigrant educational achievement.

Ok thanks for your random bombing of me with links that don't prove anything. Oh you found an article about an upcoming publication that may criticize some results from Flynn? Oh shit, that's rock-solid evidence right there.

All you're doing is the same thing as always: Pointing to the fact ( that has never been denied by any of the people studying these score gaps ) that culture and environment play a role and then extrapolating this to conclude that it plays 100% of the role, or at least that it COULD and it's not fair to claim it doesn't before "all the evidence is in" ( which it will never be based on the standards demanded).

You also ignore the Flynn effect which knees the credibility of IQ tests as a whole,

No it doesn't, Flynn is the guy who NAMED THE EFFECT and his entire career to this day has been dedicated to testing IQ and analyzing the data resulting from different tests. He's written many books about these gaps and never once concluded "well gee, IQ tests must be bullshit". In fact he uses the high legitimacy of different kinds of intelligence tests to then analyze why gaps are closing in certain areas.

I don't know that any serious body of academics thinks IQ tests are bogus. They are widely used across all areas of psychology and they have a high predicting factor of many kinds of achievements.

I find it odd that people who attack him tell him about the Flynn effect as if he had never heard of it.

As well as IQ disparities within relatively racially stable populations

Yeah that would prove something if anyone had claimed socioeconomic factors had no role to play, which no one did. If you look at the map of China, you clearly see that the higher IQs concentrate around the more affluent regions.

And you'll notice as well that there's no part of China that has a 90 point IQ just as there are not countries in Africa where the average IQ is 100.

If culture and economics were truly the only factors, you'd expect at least some kind of variation, but astronigingly, everywhere there's asians, apparently there's a culture favorable to higher IQs and everywhere there's black people, there's a culture favorable to lower IQs?

That seems more insulting and racist than the alternative if you ask me.

And I say this as a white man, and you know I'm right, because I'm white and score lower than Asians, so I get to be angry and being angry makes me correct!

Anyway this might be dickish but I have a lot of work to do so I probably shouldn't spend so much time replying in here.

Let me just ask a question: If you took 50 black couples with an IQ of 110 and only allowed their children with an IQ of 112 to breed with other blacks with an IQ of 112 ( raising the requirement for breeding by 2 points a year), would you hypothesize that in 10 generations the average IQ of this population would be 100? That is to say, the average IQ of the 10th generation children, who's parents would all have an IQ of 130 or higher, would still average back down to 100?

If you truly had 10 million dollars to bet on this, what would your predictions be?

If you blame mostly racism and culture, then you would expect the children of every generation to do no better on the IQ tests than their parents. In fact, you'd expect the black children from the very first generation to average around the national average for their group ( which is 90 I think? ).
How long could you blame culture and racism if you saw the scores constantly rise?

Not even Asians, with their supposed amazing culture of hard work and intelligence, have 120. If the average IQ of the 10th generation black children in this experiment was that high, then how could you possibly blame racism or culture?

Do you agree that this experiment would prove this one way or the other?

At 3/4/13 12:18 PM, poxpower wrote: Again, ad hominem.
That's all these people do anyway, I haven't seen a single "rebuttal" of Rushton / Flynn / Jensen that isn't about half dedicated to calling them secret racists.

...how is this an ad hominem? I made an earlier post here that pointed out you're using arguments used by members on Stormfront, and then you link a thread from there. If you want to avoid accusations of racism then don't cite something from a white nationalist forum, I guess? I mean, I would love to avoid the topic of racism and keep it about science, but you're making it pretty hard for me to do that. Like I said, I can't read that study, so go find me another one.

The word "Asian" isn't even anywhere in there. All I see is more ad hominems and more "oh I think the data just isn't good enough" crap.
It's never "the data is wrong" it's always "Well it's probably.. not conclusive enough..yeaaaah ALSO THEY'RE RACIST!!!".
That article is EMBARRASSING honestly.

Asians don't' even need to be mentioned because Metcalf is attacking the merits of the study, which is the real issue here. You keep wanting to fall back on ad hominems but there aren't any, as far as I can tell. The only think I can even remotely assume to be interpreted as an attack on character is this line:

"...some may consider Rushton, based on his comments and connections, to be a dyed-in-the-wool, old-fashioned racist"

There's nothing controversial with this statement. In fact you repeatedly bring this sentiment up in your posts. Metcalf is completely right, this consideration is prevalent. He never once flat out said himself he thinks this. Actual scientists should no problem with inconclusive data, that means there's no work to be done. The whole point of this article is that the studies supported by Rushton et al are slipshod and have extremely weak correlations, so I have no idea why you think the article is embarrassing, as I think Metcalf demonstrated this succinctly.

You see then that whether or not the cultural hypothesis is true, this is a tainted sample.

You'll have to make the case that the gap in IQ scored between black soldiers is due to outliers on the bell curve and not due to impoverished uneducated blacks being unable to score well on the test like what we saw with Eastern Europeans I posted before.

I see nothing in their history that suggests they were particularly smart or good with numbers until this small number of them moved to Europe a few hundred years ago and were presented with an opportunity to fill the financial sector which the Christians did not want to fill for religious reasons.
The root genetic pool of the Jews is the same as other middle eastern culture who don't rank particularly high on IQ tests.

I don't really see how that's relevant when put up against the effects of Tay-Sachs, which disproportionately affects Ashkenazis. I mean, it might be interesting from a historical perspective, but I don't see how that explains their abnormal IQ scores better than Tay-Sachs.

Haha. Like, you can't lose politically if you're against him. If you're a scientist or a politician and you encounter his arguments, you'll always side against him no matter what.

There's no widespread secret cabal of politically connected scientists who go after scientists who publish controversial findings. Science is often times controversial, and scientific research constantly challenges old ways of thinking. The problem here is how well you conduct the research , how reliable your study is, and how well it holds against peer review. Certainly you'd have a hard time accepting any paper published by a creationist geologist who claims the Earth is 6,000 years old. His/her name would be worth little to none within the scientific community, not because there is an atheist conspiracy, but because the paper is very likely to be garbage. Rushton is not a victim of the evil PC-left crowd, he's a victim of his shady publishing. Sure, they may have their own opinions about the guy, but I'm not discussing that, because I don't care.

Have they been shown to be dishonest with their results? I don't see criticism of their science, just endless waves of attacks at the implications of it or the motives behind their curiosity of certain subjects.

From their own website:

"Through our grants program, The Pioneer Fund has changed the face of the social and behavioral sciences by restoring the Darwinian-Galtonian perspective to the mainstream in traditional fields such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology, as well as fostering the newer disciplines of behavioral genetics, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and sociobiology."

They fund studies that deal with the school of Darwinian-Galtonian thought, what the hell do you think they're going to publish? While you're talking about political gain, let's go back to 2010 for a second. The Pioneer Fund was one of the organizations that awarded FAIR funds. I dunno, it sure seems to me that they're gaining politically, especially when they're influencing far right anti-immigration legislation.

At 3/4/13 05:45 PM, Feoric wrote:

...how is this an ad hominem?

You can't dismiss a study just because it's funded by crazy racists.

Asians don't' even need to be mentioned because Metcalf is attacking the merits of the study

What study?? What?
"Studies on Korean infants adopted by European families have consistently shown a higher IQ than the European average.[18][95][118][119] Frydman and Lynn (1989) showed a mean IQ of 119 for Korean infants adopted by Belgium families. After correcting for the Flynn effect, the IQ of the adopted Korean children was still 10 points higher than the indigenous Belgian children.[18][95][118] Stams et al. (2000) showed a mean IQ of 115 for Korean infants adopted in the Netherlands.[119] Lindblad et al. (2009) studied school performance of adoptees in Sweden relative to intelligence tests in Sweden's military. The study showed that Korean adoptees had a higher grade point average and higher intelligence test score than Sweden's national average. While non-Korean adoptees had a lower grade point average and lower intelligence test score than Sweden's national average.[120] The higher IQ for Korean adoptees is in line with the higher IQ average of South Korea compared to Western nations.[121]"

There's not just one. And the references for these studies reference OTHER studies which again found the same results consistently.

You'll have to make the case that the gap in IQ scored between black soldiers is due to outliers on the bell curve and not due to impoverished uneducated blacks being unable to score well on the test like what we saw with Eastern Europeans I posted before.

No, you can discard that study because it wasn't a random sample. No matter what the explanation for IQ is.

I don't really see how that's relevant when put up against the effects of Tay-Sachs, which disproportionately affects Ashkenazis. I mean, it might be interesting from a historical perspective, but I don't see how that explains their abnormal IQ scores better than Tay-Sachs.

BECAUSE IT PROVES THE HUGE GENETIC FACTOR OF GENETICS IN IQ WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

There's no widespread secret cabal of politically connected scientists who go after scientists who publish controversial findings.

There's tons of these studies that I'm talking about that have been published in journals and their results aren't contested. It's not usually scientists who go after them but news organizations, hence the potential damage to one's career.

You should watch the Suzuki-Rushton debate for some edification on this matter. Suzuki said he should be fired for his research. FIRED. That's the cost of doing research on this. You think he's not costing himself some grant opportunities? Or that a scientific paper or university has any interest in funding that?

Anyone who pursues this line of study or who advances any theory or hypothesis that doesn't leave a 100% space for non-genetic explanations is instantly attacked.

They fund studies that deal with the school of Darwinian-Galtonian thought, what the hell do you think they're going to publish?

Again I really don't give a shit, just show me that they produce bad science.
You can yell that they're racist and have political motives all you want, but it does nothing to actually invalidate any of their claims.

That's an Ad Hominem.

Ok thanks for your random bombing of me with links that don't prove anything. Oh you found an article about an upcoming publication that may criticize some results from Flynn? Oh shit, that's rock-solid evidence right there.
All you're doing is the same thing as always: Pointing to the fact ( that has never been denied by any of the people studying these score gaps ) that culture and environment play a role and then extrapolating this to conclude that it plays 100% of the role, or at least that it COULD and it's not fair to claim it doesn't before "all the evidence is in" ( which it will never be based on the standards demanded).

I'm not saying that genetics don't provide a role in IQ, it's just that you can't really reduce it to something as broad and mundane as race and certainly not with the data you possess. Poxpower, not only do you approach this subject with the professionalism of an 8th grader writing a 200 word essay on nothing but Wikipedia links and YouTube video's but you seem to think, rather laughably, that it gives you any sort of leverage in this debate.

Studies on race differences in of themselves have been proven inconclusive due to "race" in of itself being constructed socially, and the absence of a gene you can link to intelligence.
The heritability of intelligence is not static either.
Early socialization effects on IQ let to significant differences going as far as 1 standard deviation (104 vs 117) ages 7 to 10
Finally all this data almost conclusively adds up to no support for the hereditarian interpretation of the black/white IQ gap.
(this article also mentions the many cough-ups of hereditarians as well, racial admixture studies don't add up)
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-
on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf

"Another blood-group study, by Loehlin, Vandenberg, and Osborne (1973),
also examined the association between Europeanness and IQ in a sample of
Blacks. In this study, the estimated Europeanness of blood groups(rather than the
Europeanness of individuals, estimated from their blood groups) was correlated
with IQ in two small samples of Blacks (Loehlin et al., 1973). A .01 correlation
between IQ and the extent to which blood group genes were more characteristic
of European than African populations was found. In another small sample, they
found a nonsigniï¬cant, -.38 correlation, such that blood groups associated with
Europeanness predicted lower IQ scores."

As well as the fact that IQ is also effected by gene expression, which in turn is effected by environmental factors such as disease.

Yeah that would prove something if anyone had claimed socioeconomic factors had no role to play, which no one did. If you look at the map of China, you clearly see that the higher IQs concentrate around the more affluent regions.
And you'll notice as well that there's no part of China that has a 90 point IQ just as there are not countries in Africa where the average IQ is 100.

I really didn't realize it was this hard to put 2 and 2 together.
Is poverty in China the same as poverty in Africa with disease and starvation?

If culture and economics were truly the only factors, you'd expect at least some kind of variation, but astronigingly, everywhere there's asians, apparently there's a culture favorable to higher IQs and everywhere there's black people, there's a culture favorable to lower IQs?

Malaysia - 92
Indonesia - 89
Thailand - 91
Philippines - 86
http://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html
http://www.sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm

Let me just ask a question: If you took 50 black couples with an IQ of 110 and only allowed their children with an IQ of 112 to breed with other blacks with an IQ of 112 ( raising the requirement for breeding by 2 points a year), would you hypothesize that in 10 generations the average IQ of this population would be 100? That is to say, the average IQ of the 10th generation children, who's parents would all have an IQ of 130 or higher, would still average back down to 100?

That would depend on the heritability of IQ as a whole, which as already has been stated is inconsistent, and unreliable in the face of extraneous factors such as poverty and disease.
Secondly black IQ scores are rising, another thing that you seem to not understand while you're digging up Wikipedia links. Sometimes from 5 or 6 points to as much as one standard deviation in 30 years on some tests. Therefore the environmental factor doesn't loose any credibility as much as it gains accolades.

At 3/4/13 07:16 PM, poxpower wrote: You can't dismiss a study just because it's funded by crazy racists.

Great, but that part of my post wasn't even about dismissing a study at all, it was me being surprised that you linked a thread in Stormfront without a shred of irony. But I certainly can ignore a study based in 20-30's studies which were explicitly designed to justify social Darwinism, why wouldn't I?

There's not just one. And the references for these studies reference OTHER studies which again found the same results consistently.

Cool, you can copy and paste Wikipedia articles, but you you have completely failed to understand that statistical correlations are only reliable if the categories and data you use are valid. IQ tests do predict academic performance fairly well, they might even predict future income to some degree. To equate this with some genetic measure of some vague concept called intelligence is simplistic and wrong.

BECAUSE IT PROVES THE HUGE GENETIC FACTOR OF GENETICS IN IQ WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT.

Yeah, for Ashkenazi Jews? How is this applicable for demonstrating that the average IQ of Ethiopians is 68?

There's tons of these studies that I'm talking about that have been published in journals and their results aren't contested.

Such as?

It's not usually scientists who go after them but news organizations, hence the potential damage to one's career.

How many people in America know who Rushton is? This isn't a hot button issue.

Anyone who pursues this line of study or who advances any theory or hypothesis that doesn't leave a 100% space for non-genetic explanations is instantly attacked.

Yeah, this is completely wrong. Rushton, Lynn and Jensen are bad academics, but that does not mean there are zero good ones, and the question is worth asking.

Again I really don't give a shit, just show me that they produce bad science.

Do you not see how obvious it is that funding a study to support 20's era social Darwinism will inevitably produce bad science?

Also another thing.

A rival study actually puts average Sub-saharan African IQ in the 80's from recent empirical data. Results show that average IQ of Africans on these tests is approximately 82 when compared to UK norms
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609 000634
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf

At 3/4/13 10:28 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote: Has it ever occurred to you Americans that you can't F***ING wage war anytime and anywhere you feel like it? Also, mentally retarded people have a right to live as well. They didn't do anything to you did they?

Has it occured to you that poxpower is Canadian?

At 3/4/13 08:51 PM, naronic wrote:

I'm not saying that genetics don't provide a role in IQ

Ok then we're not arguing about anything then.

That would depend on the heritability of IQ as a whole, which as already has been stated is inconsistent, and unreliable in the face of extraneous factors such as poverty and disease.

You have 10 million dollars to bet.
Your predictions. Go.
Poverty and disease would not be factors in this experiment.

Secondly black IQ scores are rising, another thing that you seem to not understand while you're digging up Wikipedia links. Sometimes from 5 or 6 points to as much as one standard deviation in 30 years on some tests. Therefore the environmental factor doesn't loose any credibility as much as it gains accolades.

Yeah I didn't say otherwise.
And asians means east asians. Just like Africans, they are a diverse ethnic group with some populations having very high IQs and also high genetic variance.
I don't see it being the case that the same types of asians score randomly across the globe on intelligence tests, same for other races.

There could very well be select populations of Africans with very high IQs, there's nothing that says it has to be this way. My guess is that they would be genetically differentiated for many generations from the other groups.

At 3/4/13 08:52 PM, Feoric wrote:

But I certainly can ignore a study based in 20-30's studies which were explicitly designed to justify social Darwinism, why wouldn't I?

You can only criticize the methodology, never the motives.
If such studies were huge outliers in the data pool, then maybe you'd have a case, but they aren't.

To equate this with some genetic measure of some vague concept called intelligence is simplistic and wrong.

Well at this point it's just your opinion based, as far as I can see, on your hypothesis that all their methodology is wrong and inconclusive.

Which I don't even understand as you've said you still believe there is a genetic component to intelligence (or are open to it), so what are you even .. arguing with me about?

Yeah, for Ashkenazi Jews? How is this applicable for demonstrating that the average IQ of Ethiopians is 68?

It's not, it was never the point. You kept saying how none of the data on IQ heritability is conclusive, then you go and fully admit that it's totally heritable, but for some reason only in the case of this one select group...??

Why would you think it's only a factor for that group and not others?

As for the exact IQ scores of African countries, obviously not all of them are precise since the data is hard to come by. Some are estimates and extrapolations as far as I can gather, but there's no reason to think that it's somehow so wrong that the ACTUAL IQ of that continent is 100.
I see many critics of Flynn's data ( which seems to be the main source ) and all they point to are vague allusions at extrapolations etc. They don't mentions by what % he could be wrong, they only try to infer that if he's slightly wrong about some parts of it, then maybe he's totally wrong about all of it!

But beyond those criticism, I can't see that these findings are controversial at all in the main literature, certainly not in psychology.

Once again, the only thing that ever comes under fire is how much of a factor genetics / race is when it comes to IQ. The raw data is not seriously questioned as far as I can see.

Such as?

Well go nuts
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=peer-reviewed+IQ+studies+
race&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=sVs1UY_BA-L I0wHQr4GoCA&ved=0CCoQgQMwAA

You can also find a ton of the wiki article references on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Dozens of references to articles in peer-reviewed journals and many citings of studies.

Again the only thing that's controvertial is the conclusions, not the data.
If you write a paper called "Why do black people suck at IQ tests?" you will get infinite bad press.

I just listened to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKKfu9oeQM4
Some people have lost their jobs because they said unpopular things, not because their science was bad.

Universities don't want the bad publicity and the bad press from this, neither political party really wants to fund research about studying race differences. Most of the data comes from the schooling system and often they have to pry apart the results painstakingly. Probably why there's so much bickering about the methodology / validity of the data etc.

How many people in America know who Rushton is? This isn't a hot button issue.

Well more and more since the internet came about, same thing happened with libertarianism, atheism and skepticism.
And it is a somewhat contentious issue since Affirmative Action and No Child Left Behind as well as organisations and programs to help women / minorities succeed.

These are partly attempts at making sense of the failures of these kinds of programs and also at predicting the expected yields from them.

Do you not see how obvious it is that funding a study to support 20's era social Darwinism will inevitably produce bad science?

No, it's not obvious.
In fact, recently the Heritage Foundation funded a study on global warming, in the hopes that it would prove it to be false, but the opposing result emerged.

As long as they don't selectively release only the studies that yield the results they like and hide the others, you can't fault them. If you show me that they do that, or that Rushton does that, then there's an actual problem. Not that I really care too much about Rushton anyway as he's probably the most extreme one, though as far as extremists go, he's ( or was I guess ) pretty damn mild haha.

Also as far as I know, Rushton hasn't been expelled from psychologist associations, he wasn't fired from his post and he still published material in journals after receiving funding from the Pioneer Fund.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

Take the map with the bigger dick per country and compare it to the IQ per country list.

Seeing some kind of inverted correlation there?

I think it's cute how you automatically try to badmouth the US for something that we have nothing to do with. That's quite a stretch. I suppose now you'll say that the US is responsible for those countries' average IQs.

At 3/4/13 10:02 PM, poxpower wrote: You can only criticize the methodology, never the motives.

Really? I can't believe there are still people who seriously believe in eugenics. Have you people learned nothing whatever from history, or from science for that matter? There isn't a single prominent geneticist alive today who supports eugenics. Don't you think that's a serious indication that it may be bullshit? Or how about eugenics' infinitely horrible track record of actually achieving any results? Or the extremely reactionary politics of practically all eugenics supporters? Eugenics is less for the scientific approach but rather for the egotism, which all social Darwinist seem to have.

Well at this point it's just your opinion based, as far as I can see, on your hypothesis that all their methodology is wrong and inconclusive.

It's not a hypothesis, I've demonstrated it clearly in this thread. Science isn't a democracy. Prominent figures in the genetics camp have been refuted and debunked countless times over the decades. I'm not wasting time giving everyone a "fair shot" because you're asking me to go against the inertia of their discredited research and reputation. Perhaps there will be a study that will prove me entirely wrong, and I'll gladly admit I was when it comes. So far it's been the same shit.

It's not, it was never the point. You kept saying how none of the data on IQ heritability is conclusive, then you go and fully admit that it's totally heritable, but for some reason only in the case of this one select group...??

Is the line between "pretty much the whole of Africa is mentally deficient, or close to it according to their national average IQs" and "there is a cause and effect relationship between Tay-Sachs and brain maturation" really that thin to you?

Some are estimates and extrapolations as far as I can gather, but there's no reason to think that it's somehow so wrong that the ACTUAL IQ of that continent is 100.

Some? Try most. As a psychometric result, that's pretty much impossible to determine. Given the vast number of languages in the African continent twinned with the unbreakable link between IQ testing and the language and cultural environment of the test, referring to "African IQ" is meaningless.

I see many critics of Flynn's data ( which seems to be the main source ) and all they point to are vague allusions at extrapolations etc. They don't mentions by what % he could be wrong, they only try to infer that if he's slightly wrong about some parts of it, then maybe he's totally wrong about all of it!

Why don't we have a look?

"In other words, the average IQ of a population is simply an index of the size of its middle class, both of which are results of industrial development. So, an association between IQ and national wealth is hardly surprising, though its causal direction is the opposite of that assumed by L&V. But I would not take the 'evidence' presented in this book to serve arguments either way. Of the 185 countries in the sample, 'direct evidence' of the 'national IQ' is available for only 81! National IQs for 101 countries are simply estimated from 'most appropriate neighbouring countries', that is, the 'known IQs' (sic) of their 'racial groups' (p 72). But, even for most of the others, 'direct evidence' is putting it strongly, as even a cursory glance at the motley tests, dates, ages, unrepresentative samples, estimates, and corrections show. A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13-16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5-17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6-12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10-14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, and so on, all taken as measures of 'national IQ'."

"Of the 185 countries in their study, actual IQ estimates are available for only 81. The rest are "estimated" from neighboring countries. But even where there is data, it would be a stretch to call it high quality. A test of only 50 children ages 13 to 16 in Colombia and another of only 48 children ages 10 to 14 in Equatorial Guinea, for example, make it into their "nationally representative" dataset."

But beyond those criticism, I can't see that these findings are controversial at all in the main literature, certainly not in psychology.

Yeah let's just overlook this minor oversight which was incorporated into their data points which is part of the central theme of the book.

Well go nuts

lol, this is what you show me? A Google search?

You can also find a ton of the wiki article references on this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

This isn't how this works, pox. You don't just show someone google searches and wikipedia sources when they ask for a research paper.

Again the only thing that's controvertial is the conclusions, not the data.

Are we completely overlooking the criticisms from Gould et al. on how the research is conducted?

These are partly attempts at making sense of the failures of these kinds of programs and also at predicting the expected yields from them.

Ohhh, I think I get it now.

No, it's not obvious.

Yeah, that's a problem.

At 3/4/13 09:48 PM, Warforger wrote: Has it occured to you that poxpower is Canadian?

Is he? Well, I didn't know, sorry.

At 3/5/13 12:49 PM, Feoric wrote:

There isn't a single prominent geneticist alive today who supports eugenics.

Depends what you mean by eugenics.
Sperm banks are actually big supporters of eugenics since they meticulously select donors and let the women decide who they want. That's a form of it. There's an unbroken gradient between regular sexual selection and full-on extermination of a people.

Anyway, none of these IQ research guys are for any kind of Eugenics, most of them are libertarians / socialist types.

It's not a hypothesis, I've demonstrated it clearly in this thread.

Well it seems to me that based on your premise that Rushton isn't respected enough scientifically, his data / conclusions are false. You've even gone out of your way to make it seem like NO ONE seriously respected him and he was like somehow barred from serious publication when that's just not true as he was publishing material pretty much till the day he died.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

Is the line between "pretty much the whole of Africa is mentally deficient, or close to it according to their national average IQs" and "there is a cause and effect relationship between Tay-Sachs and brain maturation" really that thin to you?

Those are totally separate questions and I didn't try to use one to prove the other.
You just started fighting me on the importance of genes in intelligence heritibility. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that IQ / talent in heritable either.

The actual big controversy over all of this comes from separating humans into groups that do better than others.

I doubt you'd find anyone who disputes Africa is lagging behind in IQ as well. Here again the debate is not so much over the data ( as you can find African-America scores from other countries anyway and they don't randomly score 120s as groups ) but over the explanation for the data.

Some? Try most. As a psychometric result, that's pretty much impossible to determine. Given the vast number of languages in the African continent twinned with the unbreakable link between IQ testing and the language and cultural environment of the test, referring to "African IQ" is meaningless.

Well which is it. Is it impossible to determine because we can't gather the data, or impossible to determine because.. culture affects it.. but ... we don't know that.. unless we have the numbers.. which you say we don't have... So...

The case for language / culture is pretty weak in my opinion, it won't suddenly boost Nigeria by 30 IQ points.

Of the 185 countries in the sample, 'direct evidence' of the 'national IQ' is available for only 81!

I should think 81 countries is more than enough to establish the pattern Flynn is talking about. Not to mention that the immigrants from those missing countries can be tested once they move to richer nations, though those samples are obviously biased.
If YOU were to guess the IQ scores of the missing countries, what would your prediction be?

If you hypothesize that IQ is a measure of wealth and the middle-class ( as this book's reviewer does), why would you be angry at his estimates anyway, since they follow country's economies. It's not like he's estimating that Liberia's national average is 140.

This isn't how this works, pox. You don't just show someone google searches and wikipedia sources when they ask for a research paper.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_
nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED051341&ERICExtSear ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED051341

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=2005 -03637-001

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/457786a .html
( a debate on whether or not such studies should continue being made )

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_
nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED147009&ERICExtSear ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED147009

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/51/2/77/

etc. etc. That's just from the first page, this goes on forever. There's like one century of studies on all types of intelligences both in homogenous groups and comparing them between races.

Are we completely overlooking the criticisms from Gould et al. on how the research is conducted?

If I recall, his criticism was on how they calculated the correlation of genes and intelligence and according to him they arrived at their conclusion based on bad calculations. That's what I understood anyway, I suck at math and know nothing about stats or how to calculate anything about stats.

At any rate, I doubt he's stupid enough to claim that all ethnic groups do just as well academically.

=========

Well anyway I really have to stop this and get to work haha. It might take a while before I reply again, I'll keep researching this subject as I find it very interesting, especially because it's a great way to piss off hippies and the people with the "everything is equal" sickness.
You know those people who send those hot teachers to jail for sleeping with 17 year olds? "WELL WE CAN'T BE SEXIST, IF A MAN DID IT IT'S WRONG SO IF A WOMAN DOES IT THEN IT'S JUST AS BAD". Fucking idiots.

At 3/4/13 10:02 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/4/13 08:51 PM, naronic wrote:

I'm not saying that genetics don't provide a role in IQ

Ok then we're not arguing about anything then.

We are
You titled your thread "mentally retarded countries" and then began arguing a racial - genetic viewpoint to that correlation as well as playing with the idea of eugenics.

"There is a far stronger correlation between race and IQ than between money and IQ. If what they suggest is true, then you'd expect everyone from a set class to have the same IQ, no matter their race, yet in every country you find that people of different races, even if they are adopted into middle-class or rich families, have consistent predictable IQ scores that are mostly the result of genetics."

"Sadly, they can still vote :D
Can't kill em', but they can choose who's the President."

I've seen and had to deal with racist jizzleaks before and I always tell them the same thing "Intelligence isn't reducible to race and a lot of these differences in IQ can be explained by other more plausible means that we know of"

Secondly black IQ scores are rising, another thing that you seem to not understand while you're digging up Wikipedia links. Sometimes from 5 or 6 points to as much as one standard deviation in 30 years on some tests. Therefore the environmental factor doesn't loose any credibility as much as it gains accolades.

Yeah I didn't say otherwise.
And asians means east asians. Just like Africans, they are a diverse ethnic group with some populations having very high IQs and also high genetic variance.
I don't see it being the case that the same types of asians score randomly across the globe on intelligence tests, same for other races.

There could very well be select populations of Africans with very high IQs, there's nothing that says it has to be this way. My guess is that they would be genetically differentiated for many generations from the other groups.

When going with the type of argument you're going with, that Blacks are generally less intelligent by virtue of being Black and Asians are simply more intelligent by virtue of being Asian, you have to contest with the accolades of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Like test bias and experiments with malnutrition and early socialization lowering IQ by expansive margins, the rising of minority IQ scores significantly flies in the face of the hereditarian argument, which relies mostly on data snapshots, cherry picked evidence, and intuition.

Saying that there may be populations of Africans with High IQ's to save you from this and other argumentative points means virtually nothing, you'd have to explain why certain populations living in the same environment as other populations warranted a genetic change resulting in it, and how this can't be explained by environmental factors.

Once again there are no isolated incidences here, these are entire populations of Africans once thought to have lower than average IQ raising up the ranks due to the better environmental conditions and education.

Well it seems to me that based on your premise that Rushton isn't respected enough scientifically, his data / conclusions are false. You've even gone out of your way to make it seem like NO ONE seriously respected him and he was like somehow barred from serious publication when that's just not true as he was publishing material pretty much till the day he died.

Rushton once tried to publish a research paper with references to a non-scientific pornographic magazine Penthouse, a lot of his publications were laughing stocks as well

"Faced with this kind of criticism, Rushton tells us: "My response is that critics have failed to show an opposite
predicted ordering in brain size, intelligence, sexual restraint..." (p. 236). For his critics to succeed, they
supposedly must prove the null hypothesis that group differences are "randomly distributed around a mean of
zero." This is a posture I term "chip-on-the-shoulder science." The author is an earnest believer in genetically
determined race differences, and he vows to cling tenaciously to his world view unless his opponents can
provide conclusive proof to the contrary. In my opinion, this is the kind of approach to be expected from
religious zealots and politicians, not professional scientists. A rigorous evaluation of the evidence cited by
Rushton reveals the methods in most studies were seriously flawed and render the data inconclusive. If the
evidence is so poor, the proper action for a scientist is to suspend judgment. In reality, there is not one properly
controlled study of brain size comparing representative samples of races in the entire world literature."

He's been supported by the Pioneer Fund, a fund he headed, and the American Renaissance, admittedly racist monthly magazine.
Additionally he cherrypicks his findings, a habit that's apparently hard to break since he's been doing it close to 30 years by the time that paper was written, cutting his credibility down to a mere stump in my view.

You also kind of remind me of Rushton the way you completely ignore all the evidence I have stockpiled waiting for you.

Nigerian educational achievement in the U.S. as well as elsewhere.
These aren't isolated incidences, these are significant amounts of people from an unprivileged country attaining the highest level of achievement and getting full educations by the age of 21.

Poverty nullifies genetics in determining IQ
and so does disease and violence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11876674

Plus the average African IQ may be much higher if you look at other more recent studies
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf

At 3/6/13 11:52 AM, naronic wrote:

I've seen and had to deal with racist jizzleaks before and I always tell them the same thing "Intelligence isn't reducible to race and a lot of these differences in IQ can be explained by other more plausible means that we know of"

See here's my problem.
In all my research on this, I find two camps of opposition:
1. The camp that says the IQ data is wrong
2. The camp that says the IQ data isn't wrong, but that genetics don't explain the gaps.

Well which is it?

Like test bias and experiments with malnutrition and early socialization lowering IQ by expansive margins, the rising of minority IQ scores significantly flies in the face of the hereditarian argument

It would if the argument was that genes were the only determining factor.
The prediction is simple: You will never close the gaps no matter how hard you try.

Again it seems to me no one is denying that the gaps remain, at least in the USA where the data is very good.

But the data is still not good enough in my opinion. There would need more standardized IQ testing in adulthood.

Rushton once tried to publish a research paper with references to a non-scientific pornographic magazine Penthouse, a lot of his publications were laughing stocks as well

Yeah I am well-aware of that.
And I do agree that the data people like Rushton and Flynn have gathered is spotty and dubious.

But remember that data on this is hard to come by so they just picked whatever they could.
Remember as well that the larger body of evidence heavily suggests he's correct anyway.

Nigerian educational achievement in the U.S. as well as elsewhere.

Well I looked into it and the USA had restricted African immigration up until the late 60s, same time that Britain tightened their immigration policy to allow only select members. That means that they select only the higher achievers to allow into the country.
So your sample of Nigerians is absolutely not random or representative, as far as I can see.

If you consistently only allow into your country African immigrants with IQs above 120, you'd expect they will do well. In fact this again proves my point; when selected, they do well, when not selected ( i.e. testing is done from older populations derived from slaves ) the gap remains as the original population was not selected for higher IQ.

Poverty nullifies genetics in determining IQ

Dude this is your same study that says the opposite of what you think it says.
"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."

So basically, the poorer the family, the less genetics plays a role, and the wealthier the family, the bigger the role, ( which again is exactly where the prediction that the gap will never close comes from ).

To put it simply: All things being equal, some populations will always score lower than others. No matter how much attention, money or education you give them.

and so does disease and violence.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11876674

This doesn't prove it nullifies the genetic effect, it just shows it affects it, as NO ONE EVER denied.

Plus the average African IQ may be much higher if you look at other more recent studies
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf

That looks like an interesting paper, I will give it a more in-depth read later.
But from a quick glance, they still rank lowest in the world, as predicted.

At 3/6/13 12:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/6/13 11:52 AM, naronic wrote:

See here's my problem.
In all my research on this, I find two camps of opposition:
1. The camp that says the IQ data is wrong
2. The camp that says the IQ data isn't wrong, but that genetics don't explain the gaps.
Well which is it?
The prediction is simple: You will never close the gaps no matter how hard you try.

Good question, it's both.
1: There is evidence of overwhelming test bias in tests taken in African countries, stripping all that away the actual intelligence rises about 10 to 20 points to rest in the 80's, on par with many other poor, impoverished, or violent countries around the world. http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf

2: While still being behind most countries in IQ, that information alone is not conclusive of any genetic explanation. Especially not in the light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This really has much less to do with closing gaps than you believe
#1 We've already closed the gap in experiment
#2 We've proven racial admixture, as well as the studies attempting to confirm it, false. Kneecapping the hereditarian argument where it hurts.

Well I looked into it and the USA had restricted African immigration up until the late 60s, same time that Britain tightened their immigration policy to allow only select members. That means that they select only the higher achievers to allow into the country.
So your sample of Nigerians is absolutely not random or representative, as far as I can see.

"USA had restricted African immigration up until the late 60s" what is that supposed to mean in terms of your rebuttal?
The British passed the Immigration Act in 1971 and the Commonwealth act in 1968 to restrict immigration to those with a work permit.

The act also stands for all immigrants equally, there's no "African selection" going on; nobody is going around looking for Nigerians specifically with IQ's over 120, 110, or even 100 with jobs. Civil and political unrest in Nigeria contributed to many refugees migrating to Britain, along with skilled workers that only accelerated along the 80's and 90's after independence. A similar immigration patter occurs for the U.S as well.
Plus they achieve more academically than White Britons in Britain and Whites and Asians in the U.S. where immigration policy is less tight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nigerian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_American#Education

Dude this is your same study that says the opposite of what you think it says.
"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."

-_-

"contribution of genes is close to zero"

"Poverty nullifies genetics in determining IQ"
"IQ numbers can be greatly effected by poverty and socio-economic status to the point where genetics play practically no role at all."
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1334320/2?id=1334320&pag e=2#bbspost24531806_post_text
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1334320/2?id=1334320&pag e=2#bbspost24535423_post_text

So basically, the poorer the family, the less genetics plays a role, and the wealthier the family, the bigger the role, ( which again is exactly where the prediction that the gap will never close comes from ).
This doesn't prove it nullifies the genetic effect, it just shows it affects it, as NO ONE EVER denied.

So taking this logic downtown what do you expect when you give IQ tests to people in impoverished or diseased conditions?

I have refrained from posting in this topic because I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you are simply being redundant in saying people who aren't educated by Western standards score lower by Western standards? If so, what was the purpose of stating the obvious? This can't possibly be what you intended.

If you are somehow suggesting that intelligence is based on "race", you would be so inexplicably wrong it almost makes your entire argument an extremely humorous satirical theory (albeit nine decades too late). To believe something along these lines would require complete exclusion of more significant factors - particularly of the environments and cultures in question - in addition to the dismissal of a century's-worth contradicting evidence. Your total lack of knowledge of even the most elementary forms of anthropology, biology, and history would be blatantly obvious under this premise.

Hans Rosling gave a fantastic lecture at the TED convention several years ago. There, he spoke on broad global issues as well as the dangers of using averages to interpret regional statistics. The presentation he used can be found here:

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/human-development-trends-
2005/

If you select tile number 5, and progress through the slides, you will see some great graphics illustrating the specifics in the averages depending on the country. Your argument would imply that all sub-saharan countries would have a lower child-survival rate due to the low, "racially-based" IQ and subsequently poor health care. Obviously, this is not reality.

As depicted by the graphs below, many African countries are on par with, or just slightly below east-asian ones. If you scroll through the entire presentation, you will actually notice that the quality of life is constantly changing in certain regions (starting at 1960). Similar trends are also noticeable on the other charts such as the distribution of wealth.

If you would like a little more information on why the areas you listed are in such dire situations (no, not their skin color), I would invite you to do 10 minutes worth of research; unless, of course, you have no intention of learning about the world and would much rather retain your idiotic views:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13317174
http://www.africaw.com/major-problems-facing-ethiopia-today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14094194
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13283212
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14113249
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13949550

IQ, in addition to anything beyond pure, biological attributes have absolutely nothing to do with "race", and anyone who believes the contrary is still living in pre-WWII ideologies. Moreover, the term "race" is a highly inadequate description of humans due to its scientific ambiguity. A simple learning on genetics should make this obvious. Thus, its use is very much discouraged in the educated anthropologic and biologic world. Simply utilizing "race" as a variable in any serious discussion automatically discredits your position.

At 3/6/13 02:11 PM, naronic wrote:

1: There is evidence of overwhelming test bias in tests taken in African countries, stripping all that away the actual intelligence rises about 10 to 20 points to rest in the 80's, on par with many other poor, impoverished, or violent countries around the world. http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wicherts2010IQAFR.pdf

Correct me if I'm wrong but the authors of that paper correct the number ( avg Sub-saharan IQ) to be 82.
Keep in mind that they arrive at this by selecting different data than Lynn. Both say the other group is not doing a proper selection.
Even given the supposition that 82 is correct, that's ridiculously low.

2: While still being behind most countries in IQ, that information alone is not conclusive of any genetic explanation.

The IQ of Africans is not important to the heritability of IQ theories.
It's a separate question that would just strengthen the claim. If culture was really the main cause and heritability was a non-factor, you'd expect IQ to be clustered randomly not depending on race at all, when in fact it's predictable by race. If the data on Africa was strong and you'd find that like 10 countries have high IQs despite not being economic powers ( say 100) then that would blow the heritability theory right out of water.

Africa is a historically tribal society with many different clusters of gene pools. If intelligence is truly simply cultural, why is it that no cluster managed to develop a culture that yields high IQs?

By comparison, the culture / racism hypothesis is unfalsifiable as far as I can tell. No matter the data, they always claim that the gap is explained by culture or racism and give no experiment to prove it isn't.

This really has much less to do with closing gaps than you believe
#1 We've already closed the gap in experiment

The abstract of this paper doesn't say the gap is closed.
I know of no one who says it did, not Flynn or Murray or any of their opponents. At best you can find some samples / tests where there is no gap, but that's natural if you pick from such a large pool.

#2 We've proven racial admixture, as well as the studies attempting to confirm it, false. Kneecapping the hereditarian argument where it hurts.

I stopped reading at the "german blacks" study. He says "They claims that the blacks were more selected". WELL THEY WERE. The GIs underwent mental testing before being accepted, something like 3% of whites were rejecting vs like 20-25% of blacks.
Why does he ignore this? Kind of starting to think Nisbett is a nimrod too from reading the rest of that paper. I'll have to do more research on this.

What I do find sad is that in both camps, all the cited data is from relatively old studies.

We have much better means today to track genetics and measure brains in all sorts of ways. In the next 10-20 years we'll have much better data I think.

The act also stands for all immigrants equally, there's no "African selection" going on; nobody is going around looking for Nigerians specifically with IQ's over 120, 110, or even 100 with jobs. Civil and political unrest in Nigeria contributed to many refugees migrating to Britain, along with skilled workers that only accelerated along the 80's and 90's after independence. A similar immigration patter occurs for the U.S as well.

Hum yeah that's the point exactly. The sample of Nigerians is therefore not random and skewed towards higher achievers, which is a sample also correlated with higher IQs.

Dude this is your same study that says the opposite of what you think it says.
"The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."

"contribution of genes is close to zero"

It's close to 0 in IMPOVERISHED FAMILIES, then is says "the result is the reverse in affluent families".

So taking this logic downtown what do you expect when you give IQ tests to people in impoverished or diseased conditions?

You'd expect them to do badly.
And they do. Why are you fighting this data so much?
No one said Sub-Saharan Africans are irrevocably doomed to have an average is of 70 or 80. But right now, that's what it is.

The question of this topic is: Do you deal differently with a country that has an 80 point average IQ than you do a country that has a 100 point IQ?

At 3/2/13 09:15 PM, poxpower wrote: 7 countries have an average IQ lower than what the USA considers mentally retarded:

Pretty sad when you have to dig deep to find places that are dumber per capita than America LOL. Said places you listed are of the third world because they have been oppressed and subjugated by USA. In short your comparison is a FAIL and is the only thing here that is mentally retarded.

I did some research on the evil dictator who runs Equatorial Guinea (the stupidest most corrupt country in the world) and he got to shake hands with President Obama and his wife

USA! USA! USA! FREEDOM FOR ALL (all those that have oil*)

At 3/8/13 09:45 PM, Soviet wrote: I did some research on the evil dictator who runs Equatorial Guinea (the stupidest most corrupt country in the world) and he got to shake hands with President Obama and his wife

USA! USA! USA! FREEDOM FOR ALL (all those that have oil*)

It's an amazing photo too considering Michele Obama towers over him.