The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

I emailed Dr. Nisbett who has done a lot of research on Race & IQ for comment and this is what he had to say about the type of testing you propose:

 

Terrible comparison. IQ tests would impose limits on individuals based on population assessment whereas the belief in the planet being flat would not/did not impose limitations on exploration.

I don't know what the outcome would show and yes I have little desire to see them properly ran. What positive outcome could there be?

So where is the Right and Conservative counter to the "Leftist and Liberal" control of the IQ tests? Surely they have the capability of going forward with their racial IQ tests, yes?

Bull. All an employer has to do is have the employee take a test to ensure they have a qualified candidate before they interview them. They can even add aptitude and personality testing in their vetting process.

This has more to do with unqualified teachers than it does on race. If teaching a particular race is bothersome, simply allow that race to teach their own. Many times instruction is better received from people who are in the same race. The fact that teachers are cheating to get more government money speaks to corruption and greed more than it does about a race of people not having the "genetic assets" to do well.

 

Just as I was saying. They won't do this testing. He isn't surprised at anything. Nisbett & Co. could do this testing at least on a limited scale---but if he did suggest doing these tests, U of M would have his head placed on a stake outside his campus hall.

 

From the top:

My comparison is valid, the imagined fear of falling off the flat Earth, is as real as the valid fear of IQ researchers doing DNA-linked IQ tests: their careers would fall off the face of the Earth.

You don't want to do the tests because you know they will show the same, the same, the same thing that has already been found in older IQ studies that show Westernized Blacks being 1 standard deviation below Asians and Whites. If this data is so false, then you would WANT these better tests run to DISPROVE it. The positive outcome would be to have the junk science of Jerad Diamond types exposed and refuted.

The RWingers do not have power among the Leftists doing the IQ tests. Ever hear of the "glass ceiling?" They have been disenfranchised. What few conservative professors or researchers in these fields know their place and won't rock the boat. It would require outside people , like researchers from Mongolia or Borneo to come here and run the tests.

So if a hospital needed a neurosurgeon all they should do is run an ad in the paper and have anyone come off the streets and take their own tests to get the job??? For less technical jobs, maybe you don't even need a HS diploma, but serious lines of technical work require all kinds of credentials, entrance tests, background checks, degrees, state and national boards certifications and so on.

Bull. The school in question was 90%+ Black. The principal and teachers caught changing the test scores were as Black as the students. Transracial adoption studies show that on average, the best adoptive parents can at most improve the IQ of their children only about a 20% i ncrease. So there is limit to what even the best teachers can do. In our state, the worst schools are always majority Black with majority Black teachers and staff. These schools typically have poor discipline, work ethics and poor standards of keeping their schools clean and repaired. Sad to say, but just a matter of water seeking it's own level. What is so bad, is that the students that have the most potential are drug-down by so many of the other poor and violent students, and their bad staffs.

Of course DNA IQ testing would set realistic benchmarks on what schools can expect based on their racial make up. They would not be able to look at a single student (unless they had a DNA profile ran) and predict what they themselves could do, but looking at hundreds and thousands of students would give give an excellent prediction on what levels of learning can be typically seen.

 

I'm surprised that the fact that cro-magnon had larger brains than modern humans wasn't brought up.

 

You've repeatedly made fallacious references to the long-debunked environmental theory of IQ. If you admit adult IQ is highly genetic, then you've made a massive concession that the black/white IQ is likewise highly genetic since the gap remains into late adulthood.

Aside from that, I haven't been here since September and you have still not yet defended Nisbett's bad work from his critics. Last I heard was something about, "I'll look into that," followed by dead air.

Trust me, I saw that coming.

 

I thought you weren't going to use a source you can't defend since Nisbett ducks from his own critics with personal attacks?

Would you please paste the personal attacks that you have gotten from Nisbett after you emailed asking him about the Lee review of Nisbett's poor methodology and leaps to conclusion throughout his work?


To all of those here on this thread debating Jay: He likes to cite Nisbett as a weapon - at least when I am not looking - and when I come along and mention how his shoddy work has been demolished, he ultimately stops citing Nisbett for a period of time that spans the exact duration of my presence. I see I've been away for several months and he's at it again.

When I have discussed this topic with Jay, he has been unable to defend the use of Nisbett as a source, so he dropped citing Nisbett out of his inability to defend the guy's shoddy work, promising he'd "look into it" and all that nonsense.

I won't bother getting into details of how he denounces Rushton for discussing things outside of his line of training while he at the same time is pasting things from Graves that are outside his line of training.

You see, Jay does not - and cannot - discuss this topic in good faith.

He thinks that attacking Rushton, invoking dishonest debate strategies with questionable sources, and failing to provide the proof of the crux of his assertions - IQ equality - somehow makes IQ equality real.



This is Lee's complete destruction of Nisbett's poor body of work by a colleague. It details his shoddy methods, his poor use of data, and his unsubstantiated leaps to conclusion and his exaggerated use of existing data.

The review was published in 2009 and oddly Nisbett still hasn't been able to cough up a response.

This is the 2nd time in the past year I have bumped into Jay trying to pass off Nisbett to unsuspecting opponents when I am not present.

Tut tut.

 

Empress,

No one cares about your obsession with Nisbett and Lee. You think you have made some debate point by pasting a link to Lee reviewing Nisbett's work and that this somehow silences me from using Nisbett as a source which is only a delusion on your part. In reality Lee didn't even attempt to refute Nisbett's contention that the Black-White IQ gap was caused by environmental differences. In fact he sympathized with the argument. He made other criticisms of Nisbett that are not even relevant to this discussion and his review does not discredit Nisbett. You're clearly having problems with your memory as I recall telling you on Youtube that if you made a verbal agreement to provide feedback when I have time I will respond to Lee's reply to Nisbett. I did not get the agreement from you so I didn't bother.

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRtjgKlt8s

So I'm putting you on the spot again, Empress. Do you want this debate or not?

 

I'm not obsessed with them in the least. You're obsessed with Rushton and keep invoking Nisbett's junk research as a counter - in spite of that it's been nearly 2 years and you still can't defend your use of the old coot.

Let's repeat: Nisbett's methods and conclusions have been shown to be worthless crap.

Why do you keep using sources you can't defend?

I'm not on the spot as I'm not the one repeatedly using a source I can't defend.

You've had months to "go over" Nisbett's crap. You never have, you never will. Again, because ultimately since Nisbett can't defend his bull(*)(*)(*)(*), there's no way on earth you can do it for him. The guy has a PhD and got his ass kicked.

 

If you're not obsessed then why is it that every time you come here you make the same tired old argument? You just bumped a thread that hasn't been active for months based on an argument that by your own admission you have been fixated on for around two years. It's time to admit that you have a problem.

If you're so confident that I can't defend Nisbett's arguments against Lee then why don't you give me a verbal agreement that you will provide feedback on the thread once I write it? I'm not writing it unless you agree to the debate. If you don't what is the point in me doing it?

 

I'm not. I just call you out when you do it. Problem is, you KEEP doing it.

Dude, I've always posted responses to your silly threads on the subject, which is why you accuse of me of "obsessing over Nisbett." You've had since last year to peruse his work and whip up an excuse for why it's supposedly valid. I've been waiting for months.

You should have done this last year, dude.

Good luck with that since you couldn't get Nisbett to do it. LOL...

 

Keep citing Nisbett? You're not going to get me to stop doing that.The fact that every time you come here you keep bringing this up even bumping threads that have been inactive for months indicates that you are obsessed.

You need to get over it.

If you want me to start a thread on this subject then agree to a debate. That's a simple request. If I'm going to spend the time and energy on creating such a thread I should at least get an agreement that you, the one who keeps bringing it up, are going to participate.

 

Of course not. Your argument sinks without him.

You have retreated from citing him as a source in discussions with ME. But as I said, when I'm not around, you fish around his crap for weapons.

A debate? I've been after you since 2014 to defend your use of Nisbett and you aren't doing it. I keep seeing you cite him here or on YouTube and every time I call you on it, you drop it. Temporarily, while in my presence. Then later you pick it up again.

Here I am in 2014 pointing out you never defended your use of Nisbett in spite of his critics.

Here I was in 2015 pointing out that you were STILL not defending your citations of his work.

Yeah we totally get it and have gotten it for nearly 2 years. You are going to continue to cite as "evidence" a guy whose work has been thoroughly dismantled to such a degree he can't defend himself from his critics but keeps selling his (*)(*)(*)(*)ty little books anyhoo.

Thus, as I have said many times when I catch you using Nisbett, you are depending on the ignorance of your opponents to the deceptive methods you are using.

What do your deceptive methods prove, exactly? Nothing.

 

That is a blatant lie. I have never retreated from citing Nisbett as a source in debates with you. Anyone can go back and look at those links you posted to see me defending him when you attack his credibility.

You either want the debate or you don't. Your pathetic attempts to dismiss Nisbett as a credible source are not going to work here. You have never given an overview of Lee's research that show that he destroyed Nisbett's credibility and every time I ask you for a verbal agreement to debate this subject in a new thread you ignore the request. Why is that?

 

You're deflecting and dodging. Not one of those threads did you address the critic's points. You didn't address a single point from Lee. Ever.

I've discussed this topic off and on with you and you are still not defending Nisbett from his critics. Instead you give the bob and weave such as I showed on the two threads I linked. You could have dispensed with this nearly 2 years ago by simply addressing Lee's review of Nisbett's work.

You claim you defended Nisbett from Lee's critique. Great. Show us the link where you addressed the contents of that paper.

 

I never said that I did. I said that I defended Nisbett against YOU.

Again if you are serious about debating the content of Lee's review simply agree to do so. Why are you stalling?

 

So you didn't defend Nisbett. Why you make it about ME is beyond me.

Why has it been this long and you still haven't defended Nisbett?

The only one stalling here is you. I brought it up more than once going over a year and a half ago, have pursued you on the matter repeatedly, yet oddly you question that I am "serious" about this and need a special pinkie swear from me?

Is this a troll post?

Why haven't you defended Nisbett's work for the past 1.5+ years?

Stop dodging and post your (*)(*)(*)(*) defending Nisbett's work from his critics.

 

I defended Nisbett against your claim that his credibility had been destroyed. That's not Lee's argument that is YOUR argument. For some reason you feel the need to lie and claim I avoid citing Nisbett in debates with you which has no element of truth to it. You keep whining and ranting about me not defending Nisbett against Lee but you won't even agree to have a formal debate on the matter. Why is that?

 

For thread viewers: This is what EJ has been dodging defending for over 1.5 years, a review of Nisbett's work and core conclusions by another psychologist named James Lee who showed the problems with Nisbett's methods and conclusions from the top down.

James Lee Review of Intelligence and How to Get It

 

No you did not as you never defended Nisbett's work from Lee's criticisms, which is why you are unable to post a link to where you defended Nisbett's work from Lee's criticisms. I specifically posted Lee's work due to this and you have evaded defending Nisbett in light of it, especially since you emailed Nisbett and he was unable to give you a coherent response himself.

This thread IS a formal debate on the IQ issue, and you're absconding again. This thread is open and you aren't addressing points raised in it. You are 1.5 years+ too late on defending your use of Nisbett's work in light of its core problems as exposed by his critics.

Game. Set. Match.

Stop trying to deflect from Nisbett's questionable conclusions by trying to make it about ME. It's not about me. It's about your citation of a shoddy author.

If you can't defend your sources, stop using them.

 

A nice gem from the Lee demolition of Nisbett.

"2.3. Black and biracial children reared by European parents

Studies of black and biracial children reared by European parents yield conflicting results and thus support for no particular conclusion (Table 2). Instead of acknowledging the ambiguity of these findings, Nisbett chooses to portray them as favoring his strict environmental hypothesis by launching an unprincipled attack on the study most clearly opposed to it.

The study at issue is the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study (MTAS) (Waldman, Weinberg, & Scarr, 1994; Weinberg, Scarr, & Waldman, 1992). I first note that the MTAS data summarized in Table 2 exhibit a striking regularity that agrees with the conclusions reached earlier in this review: the environmental advantage conferred by a white upper-middle-class household for all ancestry groups appears to be largely transient. At the second time point, both the black and white adoptees showed mean IQs extremely close to the means of their respective populations.

I also note one egregious reporting error by Nisbett. In his chapter on heritability and malleability, he cites the original MTAS publication for the following: One study looked at the IQs of white children who were born to mothers with an average educational level and who were adopted by mostly middle- and upper-middle-class families. The children adopted relatively late had an average IQ of 117 [111.5 after correction for the Flynn Effect (Table 2)]. This study suggests that even children who would be expected to have an average IQ if raised in an average environment can have their IQ boosted very considerably if they are raised under highly propitious circumstances (Nisbett, 2009, p. 37).

Given Nisbett’s extensive discussion of the later MTAS reports in his account of the black–white IQ difference, his failure to mention the longitudinal wipeout of the MTAS adoption effect is inexplicable."

Egregious error or poor-quality con? You make the call.

 

The subject of this thread is Rushton's research not Lee's criticism of Nisbett. If you want to have the debate simply agree to it and I will make it on my own time. If you don't stop with this nonsense I'm going to report you for trolling because all you are doing is spamming an off-topic rant.

 

Yes you claimed that before. Problem is that in your attacks Rushton, and elsewhere in general on this subject, you cite Nisbett's work as evidence. I went through this with you before when you screamed at me on Stumble Inn to "stick to the subject, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)."

Nisbett is part of the subject. YOU in fact made him part of the subject.

As such, you are obligated to defend your use of Nisbett.

Yes, report me. You always do that with people when you hate them. Are you having homicidal thoughts toward me again?

 

The subject of this thread is your attempts to use in part Nisbett to attack Rushton. As such, Nisbett's body of work on the very topic you quote him for is fair game.

You want to be able to trash the sources others use on the topic, but you don't want anyone questioning YOUR sources on the topic.

Please report me. You are refusing to defend your sources on the very thread you are using the sources. You are behaving like a child and are trying to bully me into silence.

Here you are using your emails to Nisbett as a source repeatedly on this forum:

YOU HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY EMAILING NISBETT TO USE AS A COPY/PASTE WEAPON IN ARGUMENTS ON THIS FORUM ON THE IQ SUBJECT.

Yes. We have a right to question your use of Nisbett on the IQ topic because you have been using him as a source ad nauseam. And what I just pasted was not all of your use of him. I just got tired of digging it up.

AND on this thread you said I should be killed for my beliefs.

 

I happened to have read the thread where EJ incited/condoned terrorism/state violence and am in agreement with Empress's actions in alerting other members to EJ's location.

Not only was EJ sexist in his language against Empress, but he displayed extremist views that would put members in harm's way should a member come into contact with EJ.

As a moderator, Empress had a responsibility to protect members from danger, including from a violent minded poster.