This will be the most eye-opening 20 minutes you'll ever spend in your life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecJEYplQzXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rEjrxCeIe4

Feel free to try and challenge any of this.
I care about the truth and it makes me angry that I've been lied to all my life by basically everyone. In the last months I have been watching many debates about this. Every single time the "racist" completely crushes his opposition. They are completely unprepared for the avalanche of data that is unleashed on their egalitarian hippie asses.

Most shameful of all is their typical reaction of outrage, name-calling and bigotry, even from academics. It's pathetic.

Let's grow up.

I'm not a neurologist, but judging from the amount of physical differences between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc... It's not a far leap of the imagination to assume that our brains would have significant variations as well. There are even subtle differences within people of the same race, some families are more prone to addiction, some families have strong academic skills, and some families are skilled business people.

Using my half brother as an example, his personality is very similar to his father's even though they use to see each other once or twice a year. Luckily his step dad instilled some good values to help offset the genetic handicap.

Don't take an extreme stance like Himmler, but don't ignore it either.

At 7/16/13 03:17 PM, poxpower wrote: Feel free to try and challenge any of this.

It's already been done.

Pox you fool, everyone knows that robots are the true perfect forms unlike these inferior carbon based meat bags!

At 7/16/13 08:33 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/16/13 03:17 PM, poxpower wrote: Feel free to try and challenge any of this.

It's already been done.

"There is no real correlation between genetics and test scores,"

I have no idea how you can say something like this.
Not only does the gap never vanish but it always falls in the same order. The IQ scores even hold true for mulato children who DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY ARE BLACK. No one knows they are black but if one of their grandparents is black, they score lower than whites with 4 white grandparents.
Similarly the order is the same for 1,2,3 and 4 black grandparents. Their scores CONSISTENTLY fall in the same order.

And in Japan, half white and half asian people score right between whites and asians on tests. It doesn't even matter what IQ test. They have tried again and again to make the tests favorable for black people but it never works, whites and Asians always score higher.

You can control for "racism" by having kids with black ancestry but who look white.
You can control for wealth easily by testing rich kids. You can control for education by testing only college students. You can control for upbringing and culture by testing adopted kids.

Again and again and again the test scores fall in the same predictable order. There is no other explanation than genetics. And even if it wasn't genetics that caused this, to say there is "no correlation between genetics and test scores" is simply false.

All the critics ever do is take outlying data points and go "wow see that? Those guys scored 90 on this one but then 97 on some other one! That proves it's all false!". It's ridiculous. And every time they try and pretend like people are saying the genes vs test score correlation is 1:1 when it's closer to 0.8, which allows for many points of variation on samples.
If you take the thousands of tests as a whole you can easily plot the results along a predictable pattern which again never vanishes no matter what you control for.

At 7/16/13 04:23 PM, Prinzy2 wrote: I'm not a neurologist, but judging from the amount of physical differences between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc... It's not a far leap of the imagination to assume that our brains would have significant variations as well. There are even subtle differences within people of the same race, some families are more prone to addiction, some families have strong academic skills, and some families are skilled business people.

Using my half brother as an example, his personality is very similar to his father's even though they use to see each other once or twice a year. Luckily his step dad instilled some good values to help offset the genetic handicap.

Don't take an extreme stance like Himmler, but don't ignore it either.

To say it's attributable to race though is silly. Skin color is one thing, facial features are another. As it stands there are no firm lines between each race, rather blurs as you go from feature to feature. This is because Blacks, Asians, Caucasians and Native Americans were not put in isolated cages and bred there, they were fully able to move throughout the world all of history. Turkic tribes moved to Eastern and Central Europe forming many nations like Hungary (one of the groups which formed it were the Huns, hence Hungary) or Bulgaria (the main ruling class were Turkic invaders called Bulgars from the north). Aryans from Central Asia moved into India mixing with the native Dravidians. Thus whatever racial differences there may have been were negligible after the first person decided that crossing a river or traversing a mountain was worth it to get laid.

Now while genetics plays a part, that doesn't mean it determines behavior. There's the thing called the genome and it changes as your life goes on, it's why twins don't always exhibit the same behavior, one may take up smoking the other may not, one may be aggressive the other may be calm. These differences are passed onto children.

I've held the opinion that race intelligence studies are Christmas facts. You don't tell a child Santa Claus isn't real, you don't tell him Jesus was born on a different day, you don't tell him Christianity is a lie, and you don't tell him the world's religions are at war with each other. You just do your best to make his life better until he's old enough to understand that life isn't fair.

At 7/16/13 09:27 PM, Warforger wrote:

As it stands there are no firm lines between each race,

Yes there are. You can easily trace back lineage and forensic anthropologists can tell what race a skeleton is just from a couple bones. We can also tell from DNA where your ancestors are from.
For a long time humans were separated into groups and there are to this day many homogeneous groups all over the world.

Also, if anything, the mixing just confirms the hypothesis as mixed people fall predictably between the two races they belong too.

Thus whatever racial differences there may have been were negligible after the first person decided that crossing a river or traversing a mountain was worth it to get laid.

No that's entirely false sorry.

Humans are almost as diverse as dog breeds in some respects. You'd never think to suggest dog breeds don't matter or exist because dogs breed together. Yet dog breeds have very specific qualities to them.

So it is for human populations.

Now while genetics plays a part, that doesn't mean it determines behavior.

No, it predicts it with varying amounts of accuracy. You can tell a black person is more likely to commit violent crimes than an asian, no matter how much you control for money, culture, upbringing etc. Asians commit almost no violent crimes, much less than whites, who in turn commit much less than blacks.

At some point you have to stop pretending like this all is just magically the fault of racism somehow.

At 7/16/13 10:47 PM, Entice wrote:

I believe that this is true, but I don't understand what the value of this information is.

One well-known example is affirmative action which is rubbish. It's programs design around false information to correct sometimes nonexistent problems.
If the gap is genetic and you know the size of the gap, you know how to legislate to actually help or not. You know what cases are racism and what cases are not.

That goes into arrest ratios as well. There is public outrage over supposed racism from the police.

It should also inform immigration policies. You could limit or ban immigration from certain countries. Asians do it. We should to.

And how do black people benefit from not knowing reality? Look at all countries run by black people. When they were ran by whites, they were prosperous. When blacks take over, they become shitholes. That happens because of this idea that everyone is equal and so if black people take control of their own destiny they should be better off.

But they won't be.
Racial tensions happen because people see racism everywhere. They don't understand the real cause for race differences and they attribute it to phantom unfairness in the system and enact stupid laws to fix it, expecting results that we now know are impossible to achieve.

So really, racial tensions will never ever end if you persevere under the delusion that everyone is equal and therefore if a group is worse off than another it's not their fault. You're not doing a service to black people by telling them they should expect to perform just as well as everyone else. It's idiotic. You're creating a system of false entitlement and handouts that penalizes groups that would actually help society as a whole be better.

Look at the USA. The blacks living there are infinitely better off than the ones living in Africa. If every country in Africa was run by white people, a billion black people would see their lives vastly improved within a single generation.

That's real tangible improvement that both black and white people should want.

And I have to stress this again that white people are NOT the top-scoring intellectually yet no one suggests that there would be horrible race tensions between whites and asians or jews.

It's always "What will the blacks and browns think of this?".

You yourself probably have no qualms in accepting that asians score higher than whites despite the fact that you are not asian. I sure as shit don't give a fuck. I'm not so insecure.

So what are you really saying here? Brown people couldn't understand this the same as you and I? They couldn't live with it? They are basically too inherently racist and insecure to accept this reality without flipping out?

I think that's false.

What has been done to filter out nongenetic reasons for the disparities such as nutrition, education, money, and so on?

At 7/16/13 11:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote: What has been done to filter out nongenetic reasons for the disparities such as nutrition, education, money, and so on?

There's twin studies for instance where you can look at twins adopted into different homes.
If genetic was not an issue you would expect them to fare just however they should fare given their upbringing but they don't.
Adoption studies are really interesting in general for this. For instance, if the adopted kid's parents were religious there is a higher chance of that kid being religion even if his adoptive parents are atheist as religiosity seems to be an inherited trait.

There is also the brain size. There is a correlation with brain size and IQ and data is clear and shows that blacks have smaller brains than whites who have smaller brains than asians. If brain size correlates to test scores within a race ( say for whites ) then why would you expect that to be different if you test a black person??

At 7/16/13 11:24 PM, Entice wrote:

At 7/16/13 11:18 PM, poxpower wrote: You yourself probably have no qualms in accepting that asians score higher than whites despite the fact that you are not asian. I sure as shit don't give a fuck. I'm not so insecure.

No, but whites as a whole would probably have a problem with policies designed around that fact.

Depends what they are.
But that's just the current situation anyway. If we never talk about these ideas then it will never change.

I think that it will be impossible to get popular support for these ideas any time in the near future.

Gotta start somewhere. How long will it have taken to legalize pot? Lol.

Has anyone even given a thought to attribute it to economics?

Blacks, in general, fall on the poorer side of the wealth gap. Low income = low education. Low education + unemployment = #thuglife

Therefore, blacks score lower on tests because they can't afford proper education, not because of genetics. Whites and Asians are on the top of the wealth gap and thus are usually able to afford a higher standard of education. Blacks and Hispanics are more often poor.

I know blacks and Hispanics who were born into economically successful families, and they act the same as a white person in the same circumstances. On the other hand, I've met poor whites who act more distinctly, um, "ghetto". Behavior is a result of your upbringing, not the color of your skin.

Racial discrimination feels good for a lot of people since it's easier to label people by the first thing you see rather than actually getting to know them. However, it's just a convenient way to hide from the truth: we're one race, and that race is "human".

It is a commonality issue. In this case it turns out that people of lesser intelligence are very common among black people. However, there are some black people who are very smart, so it is not a race issue, it is a commonality issue.

At 7/17/13 12:59 AM, T3XT wrote: Has anyone even given a thought to attribute it to economics?

Yes they thought of every conceivable way to explain these gaps away that didn't involve genetics.
Despite them suppressing research, slandering those who did said research and generally ignoring the whole area, there is more than enough evidence to rule out all possible factors and say with confidence that genetics play a large role, from 50-80% in this.

Not only is this becoming more and more accepted and mainstream for racial difference but it's becoming more accepted and used for individuals.

Child-rearing for instance. We now know that genetics play a huge role in determining how a kid will turn out regardless of their parents.

There is no reason why that would somehow be true of individuals but not groups of individuals.

To me that sounds like that whole "micro vs macro" evolution bullshit that creationists try to rationalize to themselves to explain why it's possible to have different breeds of cats but it's impossible for people to evolve from apes.

Racial discrimination feels good for a lot of people since it's easier to label people by the first thing you see rather than actually getting to know them.

No. You're the one ignoring reality to feel good, not me.
People love the idea that everyone is equal. It's a myth that ( mostly white people ) keep repeating to themselves to totally re-assure themselves that THEY are not racist even though OTHER people are.

Bunch of bullshit. Even the most open-minded liberal hippy is a racist. There's plenty of studies and experiments to show that any random person off the street acts in a racist way despite what they claim.

I'll give you just one from OKcupid. There is a question that people can answer by "would you mind dating someone of a different race". Most people say "no absolutely not!". When you look at what messages they actually send to other users, you notice that they mostly stay within the same race if they are white or asian and avoid blacks and latinos.

That's OKcupid, a site full of young hippies, hipsters and liberal internet-savvy students. If you are black, indian, latino or native american you get far fewer messages than percentages would predict.

These people act in a racist way but pretend they don't and chant this same mantra that you chant that "everyone is the same peace love harmony blabla" while CLEARLY acting in a way that shows they do NOT think everyone is the same.

At 7/16/13 11:08 PM, poxpower wrote: It should also inform immigration policies. You could limit or ban immigration from certain countries. Asians do it. We should to.

If you want intelligence to be a factor in immigration policies, why not just have an IQ test for immigrants? If you happen to be a genius from Equatorial Guinea, why should you be denied entrance based on the average IQ in your country?

At 7/18/13 03:22 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

If you want intelligence to be a factor in immigration policies, why not just have an IQ test for immigrants? If you happen to be a genius from Equatorial Guinea, why should you be denied entrance based on the average IQ in your country?

Because of regression to the mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpmlqtnrec8

In other words, in populations that don't have strong selective pressures, the people regress to the mean. If you don't select who gets to breed based on IQ, the descendants of genius black immigrants will just regress to the average IQ of the population of their original country as time goes by.

In terms of numbers, two black parents who each have a 150 IQ and have 5 kids might get kids with 110, 112, 130, 120 and 140 IQ. The kids of those kids will average lower still until they average around 85-90.

On the flipside if you invite in 2 idiot Asian parents with an IQ of 85, they will equal and then surpass the descendant of the black geniuses within a few generations because the mean IQ of asians is much higher than that of blacks.

Unless at each generation you only allow people with an IQ above X number to reproduce.

There's also another factor in that intelligence disparities become more and more pronounced the higher you go on the IQ scale. So while there might be a 2:1 ratio of white to blacks for a 110 IQ, it would be 10:1 at 120, 40:1 at 130 and so on, meaning that if you invite two black geniuses, the chances of their descendants also ever being geniuses are far far smaller than if they were two white geniuses.

Of course the perfect solution is to invite them in so they can contribute under the provision that they are denied reproductive rights, but I doubt many would go for it.

It's a shame that most people will watch this talk and accept what he is saying without doing any independent research, since there is little quantifiable data in this video I think what's important is that before we debate the validity of his claims we talk a little bit more about who J.Philippe Rushton is.

a) He's dead now (irrelevant, but I just thought I'd just highlight how fucking old this talk was).

b) He spent his early childhood in South Africa, a country with notably volatile relationships between blacks and whites, this may also be irrelevant but it's a fact we shouldn't ignore completely.

c) From 2002 he was head of the Pioneer Fund, a research foundation accused of being racist.

d) In 2005, Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson of New York University wrote an article noting that Rushton ignored evidence that failed to support his position that IQ test score gaps represent a genetic racial hierarchy.

e) Throughout his career he has been accused of "basing his work on statistically flawed evidence, Rushton's theory has been accused of failing to take into account that many other traits, ranging from age, sex, social and political group membership, are observably more important in predicting altruistic behavior between non-kin than genetic similarity".

f) John Hartung criticized him for failing to conduct an adequate control group study and for ignoring contradictory evidence.

g) Biologist Joseph L. Graves argues that "not only is Rushton's book on selection theory considered to be virtually useless when applied to human life history evolution, but Rushton does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory in general, Graves also says that Rushton misrepresented the sources for the biological data he gathered in support of his hypothesis, and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means."

h) He went onto say that "Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book."

i) In 2009 Rushton spoke at the Preserving Western Civilization conference in Baltimore. In his speech, Rushton said that Islam was not just a cultural, but also a genetic problem. He thought the religion and issues associated with it were not just a condition of the belief system. His theory was that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and were less amenable to reason. The Anti-Defamation League described the conference attendees as "racist academics, conservative pundits and anti-immigrant activists"

j) The Canadian press reported that in interviews, first-year psychology students who took Rushton's classes said that he had conducted a survey of students' sexual habits in 1988, asking "such questions as how large their penises are, how many sex partners they have had, and how far they can ejaculate." LOL

j) Rushton's controversial work on race is under attack within the scientific community for the quality of the research.

So yeah. Basically what he's saying is pretty fundamentally flawed, and not accepted by most of the scientific community. Shit like this is pretty disgusting and it just validates people with racist opinions. Also, how can he claim that brain tissue is a factor in correlation to IQ when whites have the most, (according to him) and blacks have less and score lower, yet asians also have less but score higher? Nature < Nurture imo. He's ignored cultural, historical, economic, factors, & plus the IQ system as a measure of 'intelligence' is pretty retarded, in order to make his points. I hate to go against the grain on this one but it looks like he's talking complete BS, I'm not convinced by him at all, but if you give me any contradictory evidence that says that I'm wrong I will happily take a look at it.

At 7/18/13 09:31 AM, Fim wrote:

Also, how can he claim that brain tissue is a factor in correlation to IQ when whites have the most, (according to him) and blacks have less and score lower, yet asians also have less but score higher?

Well since this is your only actual argument against him, I will address it. The rest is just the typical name-calling that he has dealt with his entire career.
For instance they love to mock the penis data he got because some of his data points were old and weak yet there's much new research and new surveys on this and they predictably show the same results that Rushton claimed. But you don't see these clowns taking a look at them, even up to Rushton's death.

http://www.everyoneweb.com/worldpenissize
Even if some data points are weak, the global picture is extremely clear. There's no big-dicked asian populations and micropenised african countries.
Even if the average length varies depending on the study, the order is always the same: black, white asians.

If Rushton was lying, then the order would be mixed every time. Both by surveys, self-reporting, measuring, medical records or anecdotal evidence from people who have seen a ton of dicks ( i.e. prostitutes ).

Anyway here's a sampling of data on IQ correlating with brain size, which sites multiple studies:
http://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correl ates-with-iq/

Again Rushton critics ignored all recent data and pretend like this is just some kind of hilarious frenology-like pseudoscience where we now have MRI measurements and tons of further studies that keep producing the same results.

Btw he died in 2012, hardly any argument to show "how old is videos are" lol.

And btw there is sometimes very little good data on what Rushton studied because you can lose your career over studying this.

Just watch the debates to get an idea of just how intellectually dishonest his opponents were. They have ABSOLUTELY no interest in finding out whether or not Rushton is onto something. They usually dismiss off-hand whatever he just said then start rambling on about the pioneer fund or about how we have to just all get along.

Total anti-scientific garbage. The old Rushton-Suzuki debate is the poster child for this. Suzuki is an EMBARASSMENT to scientists everywhere in that video while the audience is a typical mix of brainless chimps where somehow only the stupidest members get to ask questions at the end.
The QandAs of videos from Rushton or Jared Taylor are every bit as sad and hilarious as those from Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.

I'm seeing the exact same patterns in behavior. I keep looking for that interesting debate where a scientist or anyone will be close to match Rushton or Taylor on the facts or the data but every single time they get completely SMASHED and have nothing but ad hominems and non sequiturs to spout off.

Again I invite anyone to go and watch the videos for themselves. Skip to the Q and A if you want, you judge for yourselves whether or not their opponents are interested in the truth.

At 7/18/13 11:03 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/18/13 09:31 AM, Fim wrote: Also, how can he claim that brain tissue is a factor in correlation to IQ when whites have the most, (according to him) and blacks have less and score lower, yet asians also have less but score higher?

Well since this is your only actual argument against him, I will address it. The rest is just the typical name-calling that he has dealt with his entire career.
For instance they love to mock the penis data he got because some of his data points were old and weak yet there's much new research and new surveys on this and they predictably show the same results that Rushton claimed. But you don't see these clowns taking a look at them, even up to Rushton's death.

http://www.everyoneweb.com/worldpenissize
Even if some data points are weak, the global picture is extremely clear. There's no big-dicked asian populations and micropenised african countries.
Even if the average length varies depending on the study, the order is always the same: black, white asians.

If Rushton was lying, then the order would be mixed every time. Both by surveys, self-reporting, measuring, medical records or anecdotal evidence from people who have seen a ton of dicks ( i.e. prostitutes ).

Did you really just link me to a site that looks like it was made on MS Paint? lmao Anyway, the point I was making was that it's a bit fucking weird for a supposed learned academic professor to ask a bunch of first year students how big their dicks are, and how far they can ejaculate, that's a bit on the ethically dodgy side.

I'm not disputing that there's biological differences between different races; blacks have a higher bone density so they're better at running, whereas whites are better suited to swimming, but intelligence is a learned characteristic. You aren't born naturally smarter just because you're white, it's about how you're raised. You could just as easily point to data that shows women are superior intellectually than men, or the other way around, but that would prove that the difference was INNATE. That's the important distinction. Do you not think it's weird that so many scientists would criticise his studies if there weren't legitimate concerns?

Anyway here's a sampling of data on IQ correlating with brain size, which sites multiple studies:
http://abc102.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/brain-size-and-correl ates-with-iq/

Again Rushton critics ignored all recent data and pretend like this is just some kind of hilarious frenology-like pseudoscience where we now have MRI measurements and tons of further studies that keep producing the same results.

Btw he died in 2012, hardly any argument to show "how old is videos are" lol.

The original video you posted looks like it's from the 90s, the fact that there's been no further research into his claims and information like this has not been widely circulated kinda proves that he was exploring an intellectual cul-de-sac.

Again I invite anyone to go and watch the videos for themselves. Skip to the Q and A if you want, you judge for yourselves whether or not their opponents are interested in the truth.

I really don't have the time lol. This Rushton guy seems too skeptical to take seriously, and I won't waste my life researching him in any more depth than I have already had to since he wasn't very specific about his data in that lecture you posted, especially when you've got experts in the field weighing in on this, and saying stuff like -

"RushtonâEUTMs racist propaganda is tantamount to publishing ads for white supremacy and the neo-Nazi party. If you have any question about the validity of the "science" of RushtonâEUTMs trash you should read any one of his articles and the many rebuttals by ashamed scientists."

At 7/18/13 12:25 PM, Fim wrote:

Did you really just link me to a site that looks like it was made on MS Paint?

So basically you read nothing on there.
It has many sources that you can freely check. Go right ahead.

lmao Anyway, the point I was making was that it's a bit fucking weird for a supposed learned academic professor to ask a bunch of first year students how big their dicks are, and how far they can ejaculate, that's a bit on the ethically dodgy side.

There's tons of other studies, surveys and data points on penis size.
Again just trying to discredit the guy with ad hominems.

but intelligence is a learned characteristic.

No, intellectual potential is set at birth. That is not even controversial at all.
No matter what you do you can't raise a kid's IQ to 150 when his genes are set to a 120 max.
That's why, when you correct for nutrition / education / environment a bigger predictor of academic achievement / IQ scores is still the biological parents.

Mind you this had nothing whatsoever to do with race research, this is a fact that is widely accepted and discussed in books such as Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate for instance.

You aren't born naturally smarter just because you're white, it's about how you're raised.

No, like I've said before, we can control for upbringing via adopted Twin studies.
You don't know what you're talking about. At least admit it.

Do you not think it's weird that so many scientists would criticise his studies if there weren't legitimate concerns?

I know exactly why they criticize him and it's because it's not OK in the USA to be white or talk badly about races other than whites.

You know this, I know this we all know this. People in the media and even in academic circles lose their jobs over this routinely, for saying things that, were they of any ethnicity other than white, they would be praised for.

Someone starting a "Study of the importance of white culture" program in school would get fired where someone starting a "Study of the importance of black culture" would get media praise and government grants.

Race studies place whites above blacks, arabs and latinos and therefore it's not ok. If the facts so happened to put whites at the bottom, then I GUARANTEE YOU Rushton would be famous today and would never have had to ask for a single penny for the rest of his life.

The original video you posted looks like it's from the 90s, the fact that there's been no further research into his claims and information like this has not been widely circulated kinda proves that he was exploring an intellectual cul-de-sac.

There HAS been further research.
I've already explained why people are afraid to research this.

I really don't have the time lol.

Then shut your mouth?

This Rushton guy seems too skeptical to take seriously,

I think you mean "suspicious", Einstein.

since he wasn't very specific about his data in that lecture you posted

I have just linked you to an article which is EXTREMELY specific about the data and where it came from and you ignored it.

All I've ever found from his critics were what you just did:
A. Personal attacks
B. Cherry-picking weak data points while ignoring dozens/ hundreds of others.

But again no scientist who speaks in FAVOR of Rushton or his viewpoints is safe so all you will ever read are articles against him because to be with him means you risk your career.

At 7/18/13 12:48 PM, poxpower wrote: So basically you read nothing on there.
It has many sources that you can freely check. Go right ahead.

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.

No, intellectual potential is set at birth. That is not even controversial at all.
No matter what you do you can't raise a kid's IQ to 150 when his genes are set to a 120 max.

That's the thing, unless you can show me specific evidence for that claim, I don't think that's correct. I've done more research than I need to on this, and I can tell you've just got your info from a bad source, although there are differences in IQ between different races "no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test". And the man with the 3rd highest IQ in the world is black. He's got an IQ of 190.

Mind you this had nothing whatsoever to do with race research, this is a fact that is widely accepted and discussed in books such as Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate for instance.
like I've said before, we can control for upbringing via adopted Twin studies.
You don't know what you're talking about. At least admit it.

I think you've chosen to believe a theory that fits your world view, or maybe you've just not researched this from both angles.

I know exactly why they criticize him and it's because it's not OK in the USA to be white or talk badly about races other than whites.

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.

You know this, I know this we all know this. People in the media and even in academic circles lose their jobs over this routinely, for saying things that, were they of any ethnicity other than white, they would be praised for.

Here's a thought, because it's often racist? Like saying a black person can't attain an IQ higher than 120.

Someone starting a "Study of the importance of white culture" program in school would get fired where someone starting a "Study of the importance of black culture" would get media praise and government grants.

Maybe because in America you already live in a white culture and have no need to bring it into the spotlight because it's already the norm.

I really don't have the time lol.

Then shut your mouth?

;'(

I have just linked you to an article which is EXTREMELY specific about the data and where it came from and you ignored it.

You linked me a study that quotes Rushton quite heavily right from the start.

All I've ever found from his critics were what you just did:
A. Personal attacks

Reviews by scientists are not personal attacks, scientists have a better insight on his publications than either of us.

B. Cherry-picking weak data points while ignoring dozens/ hundreds of others.

I think you're being fairly guilty of doing that yourself. You ignored 11/12 points I made in my first post.

If I recall Africans are the only ones without any genetic link to neanderthal.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study

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.

What scientists?
What reviews?
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.

Btw I note that Grave's criticism seem to focus solely on the evolution of humans, for which Rushton has many admittedly sparse theories and claims.

But note that his explanations for the data he now has DO NOT CHANGE THE DATA.
Rushton has tried to make sense of why certain groups are certain ways ( for instance his "Cold climates make you smarter") theory. Whether or not these are true IS NOT RELEVANT to the fact that many east Asians have high average IQs.
I've noted in his conferences and debates that he often makes such hypothesis / claims on the ancestry of man and often follows them by "but I'm not sure" or "we need more research".

But again that does not particularly interest me and does nothing to discredit the data that we now possess for racial differences today.

Oh btw I looked into that 190 IQ black dude just for fun. I mean it doesn't prove anything either way if there is such a guy who exists as no one ever said it was impossible, but still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Emeagwali#Media_criticis m

Whoops looks like it was all bullshit anyway lol.
Here's a more serious list of actually tested geniuses: http://www.businessinsider.com/smartest-people-on-earth-2012 -10?op=1

Not a single black on there.
Look at the full list of names here: http://psiq.org/

You could claim this list is biased for whatever reason but these results are pretty much what you'd expect to find from the general IQ data that has been gathered from the population at large.

Here's some more interesting studies.
http://gp4u.tumblr.com/post/478735737/racial-iq-gaps-the-sca rr-study
Mullato studies in which the test scores fall consistantly precisely in the order of how many black grandparents a kid has.

Note also that the gap often appears at a very early age before racism, poverty, education etc. could be claimed to have any effect.
All that matters by then is nutrition and that's easy to control for.

Fun times.
http://mulattodebate.forumchitchat.com/post/Black-And-White-
IQ-Gap-2013828

Oh lastly, feel free to watch this debate of Rushton vs Graves and make up your own minds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRtjgKlt8s

At 7/19/13 01:47 AM, poxpower wrote:

Race and Intelligence : Science's Last Taboo

At 7/21/13 12:11 PM, Fim wrote:

At 7/19/13 01:47 AM, poxpower wrote:

Race and Intelligence : Science's Last Taboo

== Where did IQ tests come from?
There are many NON cultural IQ tests and even on traditional IQ tests, asians outperform whites. I invite you to take a look at Raven's progressive matrices: http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf
Try and tell me that's a cultural test. You don't need to know how to read, write, do math, spell or any knowledge whatsoever of anything in the world. An alien could take this test and it would measure their IQ.

"Modern IQ tests remain highly controvertial". No they don't. Only for "morons" ( which is people between normals and idiots lol ).

"Can intelligence really be measured by a single number?"

IQ is strongly correlated with every possibly way that we define intelligence.

========

"Asians do better because they study more and have a culture of intellectual work".
IQ can't be changed significantly simply by studying more. Furthermore intelligence tests show gaps at a very early age, long before you can say that it's because of hard work. And furthermore still, the twin studies indicate that the IQ of twins is identical. What are the chances that every single pair of these twins just so happened to be raised in a culture where hard work was exactly as praised?
And when Asians are raised by whites, they still outperform whites, they don't suddenly regress to the white average IQs. Why should that be? No cultural explanation is enough alone to make sense of this.

On top of it all, when North Koreans will emerge from their cocoons, it's very likely that their scores will be indistuiguishable from the South Korean score within the span of a single generation. But they went from a decades-long culture of hard manual labor, poverty, cultural isolation and religious-like leader worship. Compare that to the American African populations which still blame whites centuries after the face for slavery holding them back.

If the genetic explanation is false, you would expect North Koreans to lag behind South Koreans for generation upon generation, like the blacks, wouldn't you?

====================

Another interesting thing is impulse control, which also seems to be genetically determined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
The races perform on this test in the same order that they perform on IQ tests. This test also strongly correlates with success in life because it measures how willing a person is to forego present pleasure for future reward.

===============

"Parenting is what explains why people do well in school".
Again that's false not only between races but within races as well. This is what the twin studies show. The academic success of the genetic parents is a better predictor of the academic success of the kids. The adoptive parents don't mean shit. Black kids raised by caring loving involved white parents don't do as well as the white kids.

"Society shows the white middle-class paradigm and this alienates us black who can't identifiy with this image and thus we fail more"
Again why do Asians consistently kick white people's asses then?

===============

"There is no such thing as race, we are so similar from place to place, more than other animals".
First of all, other animals are of no concern. Second this argument falls apart once you consider how similar a man and a woman are genetically and yet how different they are biologically. So it does you no good to point to a certain % of differences and pretend it has no impact. Race and IQ doesn't need to be measured by a geneticist anyway. People self-identify correctly as their biological race, meaning that you could just pick out by eye a sample of people from however many race groups you decide to make and you'd be about as correct as if you did genetic analysis on the ancestry of all those people.
So all you need is your eyes and an IQ test to show that the differences exist and twin studies to show that they're hereditary and by how much. Nothing else.

================
"Does brain size correlate with intelligence"
Yes it does. Nisbett is lying and picking on anecdotal evidence trying to show that the general trend is therefore false. We can measure brain size with MRI scanners now and this has been done. They fall in the same order as the IQ tests and the old brain size date.

Second he claims that there is no evidence to show that blacks with more Europeans genes do better than blacks with more african genes. That's simply false.
http://gp4u.tumblr.com/post/478735737/racial-iq-gaps-the-sca rr-study

And it's true for half-whites and half-asians. I don't know what Nisbett is talking about.

Then he goes on to mention a study of "black chicago kids with genius-level IQs" who didn't have white genes in them? I have no idea what study he's talking about or what point he's trying to make. No one said there can't be African geniuses.

===============

"The social definition of races doesn't match the genes"
Again as I said, that's false. Notice that this fat piece of shit would never use this argument to say we should cut social programs for blacks and latinos because "there is no such thing as race'.

======

"Black culture makes black kids underachieve so all blacks fail on purpose."

That's pretty retarded. But anyway again twin studies and young people gaps show that culture can't possibly explain these disparities so consistently. Not to mention that no black nation has or has ever had a culture of success or intellectual prowess. Long before they ever met other races they were still underperforming as we know from their tools, buildings, artwork, music and total lack of civilizations and inventions.

The "guns germs and steel" guy pretends it's because they never domesticated horses. How could that be? At the time we domesticated horses (3000-4000bc), black cultures were already behind. Look at what the summerians were doing 6000 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
Metalwork, city-states, canals, writing, advanced pottery... All before the horse.
That's more advanced than what any sub-saharan of Australian aborigines people ever managed to do. HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU POSSIBLY BLAME CULTURE FOR THIS?

Furthermore horses were domesticated long enough ago that they easily could have spread all over Africa if those cultures had the capability to care for them and use them. Horses spread all over the world, even up to North America, but somehow failed to spread to Europe despite his claim that horses are the cornerstone of civilization? Despite the fact that Arab empires had plenty of both horses and trade contact with Africans? Please.

Anyway... moving on...

=========

"If we recognize genetic IQ differences in races then it'll be like Apartheid, the Holocaust, Eugenics etcetc"
No. Shut up you moron. I shouldn't even have to elaborate on this.

At 7/21/13 04:31 PM, poxpower wrote: Try and tell me that's a cultural test. You don't need to know how to read, write, do math, spell or any knowledge whatsoever of anything in the world. An alien could take this test and it would measure their IQ.

"Modern IQ tests remain highly controvertial". No they don't. Only for "morons" ( which is people between normals and idiots lol ).

OK, I'm sorry I stopped reading there. Psychology BSc reporting in to tell you you're talking bullshit.