Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

It's off-topic but; if you're a Christian group, you made the list; if your group opposes illegal immigration, you're on the list; if your group is conservative, it's on the list.

If they were consistent, there would be an awful lot of college campuses on the list for all the hate they espouse.

 

There are Christian Fundamentalists and conservative groups that oppose illegal immigration who are preaching hate. If they're doing it they deserve to be criticized. Claiming the SPLC favors the left and doesn't widely criticize everyone you think is promoting hate does not make them a left-wing hate group. As a Democrat with political views that could be considered liberal, progressive, egalitarian or leftist it really doesn't bother me at all if an organization leans left politically. What matters is if they are doing legitimate research. You can't please everyone and not being completely neutral politically or ideologically does not mean that the SPLC is the opposite of what they say they are i.e. "An organization fighting against hate groups that is a hate group themselves."

So regardless of how you feel about the Southern Poverty Law Center the real issue is whether or not what they are reporting is accurate. When it comes to Linda Gottfredson specifically she is a Pioneer Fund grantee who has ties to White Nationalist organizations. Is this information true or false? That's what really matters. I've watched her interview with Stefan Molyneux which Taxonomy26 posted. Stefan Molyneux is an alt-right Youtuber who is a supporter of Scientific Racism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stəˈfæn ˈmɒlɪnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian podcaster and YouTuber. Molyneux, a self-published author, usually speaks on topics including anarcho-capitalism, politics, race and intelligence, multiculturalism, right-libertarianism, anti-feminism,[1] and familial relationships.

A supporter of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, he has been described as alt-right by Politico and The Washington Post, and right-wing by CNN.[2][3][4][5] The Freedomain Radio internet community which he leads has sometimes been described as a cult.[6][7][8][5] Molyneux formerly worked in the software industry.

That video does not fulfill the request I made to show a scholar in the last 10 years who has presented research in an academic setting who defended the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. Let's simply compare sources. Look at where Linda Gottfredson chooses to present her arguments (with alt-right Youtubers) and look at the source I provided, Joseph Graves and where he presents his research (the Harvard Museum of Natural History and John Jay College of Criminal Justice).

They're both scholars but Gottfredson is far below Grave's level in terms of credibility as a respected scientist which is the case for proponents of Scientific Racism in general. They simply aren't taken seriously by academia. If they were they would be giving lectures and allowing their research to be challenged by opponents in an academic setting which is central to my point in this thread.

 

I was referring to YOU and your argumentation tactic. You blame it all on white people in a very thinly-veiled fashion by citing "discrimination and poverty," two highly subjective terms which are fluid in definition and thus have little value.

I have made no argument which requires sources as I merely stated the lack of substance in your argument to which you have and continue to take liberties to claim that any environmental impact on IQ necessarily means group IQ gaps have been caused by "discrimination and poverty," when there is no body of studies to show this, and there isn't going to be because "discrimination and poverty" are fluid, vague, subjective, and thus worthless terms.

I don't need to "counter" anything as there are no studies that prove fluid and subjective terms like "discrimination and poverty" cause IQ gaps. You're trying to escape the burden of proof your assertions need to meet.

I've provided feedback by pointing out the scientific gaps in your argument. Once you reach the limits of science - to show that there is a degree of environmental effect on human IQ - you then leap to conclusions about that it's "caused by discrimination and poverty."

They're both subjective terms thus lacking in any real substance. One man's poverty is another man's wealth, what is defined as "discrimination" may or may not be.

I'm denying that correlation-equals-causation arguments are legitimate.

WHICH environmental differences? You have them narrowed down to TWO for which you have not provided legitimate cause for. There are countless types of environmental influences people have on a daily basis. It could be bad jobs, bad relationships, long commutes, family illness, unplanned pregnancy, local climate, quality of local food related to local climate, etc. You have it narrowed to two and you have not substantiated that.

I've long ago illustrated that the consensus is about .70-.80 heritable adult IQ, for which you have not previously quarreled. A minority of studies show the heritability level at .90 or higher. Thus, the genetic component has long been proven which is why the environmental theory of IQ was debunked in the 1970s.

The burden of proof is solely on you to illustrate that

1) That environmental influence on IQ necessarily means that X and Y influence IQ, and that
2) Studies have shown that group IQ gaps close when factors X and Y are mitigated to the exclusion of all other possible environmental factors.

There is still not a replicated, validated large-scale study on this earth that shows IQ gaps have closed.

Again here, the so-called "statistical evidence" you offer is another correlation-equals-causation argument which basically states that black people get arrested more because of white racism, not because blacks commit far higher per capita rates of crime - which they do. This is a very old argument and it is the SOLE "explanation" of the "institutional racism still exists" crowd.

If there were legitimate genetic arguments that show the IQ gap is caused by "discrimination and poverty," then there would be an established scientific consensus to this end, which doesn't exist.

Rather, since there isn't one, you prefer to take a few individuals who offer such arguments and use them as an ideological battering ram.

Exactly, many variables. You have not shown that these many variables have been reduced to subjective, vague things like "discrimination and poverty."

Black children reared in more affluent white households (ie MISTRA) have IQs like their black biological parents rather than their white adoptive parents, so we should have at least seen some IQ improvements in terms of the claimed effect by poverty and nutrition, which we did not see.

As I recall, I pointed that out some time ago, for which you lacked a response.

Quoting from activist academics and leaping to conclusions isn't an argument.

When you use bad sources, you refute your own argument, which is why over 3 years have passed and you have yet to defend said bad source from scientific criticism.

They have reports titled, "Terror From the Right" but nothing about the left. You think that's a mere coincidence that this happens year after year? That they support illegal aliens and other left wing causes, but it's just a mere coincidence?

There's nothing about Occupy Movement or Antifa violence there, but they drone and on about the clown car Aryan Nations movement.

Coincidence? Seriously?

Perfect example. Such black academics and fringe groups are numerous enough that they should be on the Hate Watch list, yet aren't. They get a little teeny article, at best.

Why? "Hatewatch is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right" which is the headline on the SPLC's Hatewatch page, up on top for all to see.

Why is that happening if they aren't biased to the political left, sir?

A woman was put on their anti-LGBT list for giving an interview with the Family Research Council on a topic not related to LGBT people. She talked to the FRC about SOCIALISM and was labeled a hatemonger for it.

You don't seem to be very critically analyzing the ideological substance of their website.

 

So there isn't anyone on the pro-amnesty side preaching hate? Are you kidding?

 

That's all anyone really needs to know. You haven't taken an objective look at my sources to understand the arguments and provide feedback and you have no sources of your own so there is no point in me wasting time with you. As for the Nisbett-Lee debate that is just a troll tactic you have been playing for years. Every time I say that I am going to make the thread you flee from the board and go on extended hiatus. As I recall last time you said you wanted me to contact Lee and invite him to the thread. Well I've read Nisbett's book, re-read Lee's article and there is simply nothing of substance there. He doesn't dispute the core arguments central to Nisbett's point about whether there are genetically determined racial differences in IQ. Nisbett supports the environmental hypothesis which is supported by genetic evidence that I have cited in this thread. If you dispute that we can debate it here but if you want me to make a thread and invite Lee to it I will only do that if YOU verbally agree to participate in the debate which will be at Sciforum and contribute to the discussion BEFORE I invite him. I have debated you and other racists on different message boards including debates that were around 30-to1. You keep leaving PoliticalForum. If you want that debate then step up to a science message board.

Otherwise you can continue trolling and pretending you have an argument when you don't.

 

Part 1 : BS.
Empress doesn't need a source for the well known IQ scores/gaps of 50+ Years/app same as current ones.
One needs a source to prove the apologetics for the scores/that THEY are actually claiming are equal, especially in light of the socio-economic adjustments (and trans-racial etc) that have Already been made by good-faith researchers.

I know a narrow-minded Black-White only Race poster like you doesn't care, but the NE Asian-White gap hasn't closed lately either, but the apologists (and you) aren't drooling all over their papers because the lower scores are whites, not black/USA-Black. Really telling as always. And that even poorer NE asians do better than whites. PC frauds jes worry about them blllack scores.

Part 2:
Sciforum is a Left Wing Fraud with less coherent/quality debate than here.
Yeah, just hours before you suggested/challenged me to go there, I had, just over 2 months ago.

First post, along with my general position, I caught the moderator 'Bells' (I always go for the biggest/best) LYING about the Black/DRC/Congo murder rate. A stupendous claim that it was app the same/slightly lower than the Chinese homicide rate!
OH BABY!
So I posted the Wiki Country crime stats showing the DRC murder rate was actually 16x Higher.

The Blatantly Lying MFer mod didn't answer me.
Silence, and he was on the board when I posted it, and subsequently.
NO ONE else noticed/challenged him in weeks!
WTF. That's was an obviously outrageous claim, yet all fell in line.
That's why you want to go there, One-sided Biased shout downs and cheerleading/no-challenge for your BS.

Then I posted some of my standards. ALL good Sci Links plus a few more, and got virtually nothing but BS opinion from 'iceaura', and even less from the few other little one-line turds. The little ice-Liar whiffed on most of it, and complained I wasn't posting science! I was averaging two good links per post: him none, just opinion.
What an idiot.
Not worth debate, and no one else there. I left. Again and forever.

The link: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-is-real.159634/page-9
I am 'yelena' obviously.


Ejay's usual above;
1. Burden shift: I called him on. The scores/data/gap are in evidence already. It's the apologetics need validation.

2. False challenge: to go to another more PC-friendly board cause he's getting Killed here. He needs help. BIG help.

3. Hey ejay, why bother? why don't we just email uncle joe and take his word for it. No debate needed.
He's 90% of you typeface anyway.
It's gonna be the same drown-em-in-unca-joe-as-if-hes-god-instead-of-NCAT-house-scientist... no matter where the debate is. As ALWAYS.

Same fallacious crap every post/thread.

+

 

Strawman.

She does need a source for claiming there is a genetic component to racial IQ gaps. She didn't provide one even though she is defending the claim. She is just twisting the argument to say, "You haven't explained how environment and only environment causes the gap" which if she's read my sources she would know is a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

Shifting of the Burden of Proof

onus probandi

(also known as: burden of proof [general concept], burden of proof fallacy, misplaced burden of proof, shifting the burden of proof)

Description: Making a claim that needs justification, then demanding that the opponent justifies the opposite of the claim. The burden of proof is a legal and philosophical concept with differences in each domain. In everyday debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the claim, but it can also lie with the person denying a well-established fact or theory. Like other non-black and white issues, there are instances where this is clearly fallacious, and those which are not as clear.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires justification.

Person 1 demands that person 2 justify the opposite of Y.

Person 2 refuses or is unable to comply.

Therefore, Y is true.

Example #1:

Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.

Nick: How do you figure?

Jack: Can you prove that I don't?

Nick: No.

Jack: Then I do.

If you rule out genes as a factor you don't need to know all of the details on how many environmental variables affect IQ score. You need only establish that the environment is not equal. My sources deal directly with the genetic research and evolutionary arguments showing that there is no scientific basis for claiming there is a genetic component. There are several studies that analyze environmental variables including those mentioned by my sources (ex. social discrimination, toxic environment, malnutrition etc.) to understand how they impact IQ however to claim that the gap is 100% environmental and 0% genetic you need only rule out genes as a factor which has been done and to date my primary sources have not been refuted. In this thread they haven't even been addressed by Empress you or others.

Which good-faith researchers? Can you name any? I've already established that sources you cited such as Rushton, Murray and Gottfredson have a racist ideological agenda for claiming there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ given the pseudoscientific nature of their research, advocacy of racist policy recommendations and associations with racist organizations such as the Pioneer Fund. You don't have researchers arguing in good faith that support your position that I am aware of. As for scores even those are in dispute. For example Jelte Wicherts provided a detailed critique of the work of Richard Lynn who has claimed that the average IQ of Africans is about 70. Wicherts analyzed Lynn's studies concluding that his research is methodologically flawed and that more reliable studies estimate African average IQ scores to be around 12-15 points higher than Lynn reports (around one standard deviation). There is also evidence provided by James Flynn that the Black-White IQ gap between 1972-2002 was reduced by 4-7 IQ points showing that the gap is not immutable and the environmental improvement can boost the scores of groups with lower average IQ.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01802.x

There are certainly disputes over the reliability of IQ tests to measure intelligence, the size of IQ gaps and whether those gaps can be reduced. But the key issue here is that the claim that the cause is genetic or that there is a genetic component to IQ differences is based on pseudoscience. Once genes are ruled out as a cause the alternative environmental explanation has been validated. There's no apologetics on my end or those of my sources. This is good scientific research done by respected scholars showing that there is no genetic component to racial differences in IQ. The existence of group differences in score does not mean that the cause is genetic and that claim has been refuted.

If the Asian-White IQ gap is important to racists like you then why are your posts almost entirely fixated on the Black-White IQ gap? How many threads have you made on the Asian-White IQ gap on this and other boards? List them. I've already shown you that I made one thread on the topic and the racists on the board I posted on weren't really interested. Some denied the gap existed. Some said it had no impact on cultural differences. Some used David Duke's argument that Whites could still be superior culturally because they are better than Asians in some aspects mentally and behaviorally that leads to them creating more advanced civilizations despite having slightly lower IQs.

Interestingly Asians don't seem to care much generally about there being an Asian-White IQ gap. There's no Asian equivalent of Stormfront. There aren't many Asian HBD bloggers. The available research seems to stroke the egos of White Supremacists and Nationalists far more than Asian Supremacists but among the studies I have seen I do find it interesting that some Asian researchers have concluded that cultural rather than genetic factors are the cause of the Asian-White IQ gap.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060715/

By the way did you ever give an explanation for why Southeast Asian countries are poorer and have lower IQ scores on average than Northeast Asians? Aren't they the same race? What about Native Americans? Aren't they Mongoloids? How do YOU explain such variation in score within racial groups if race determines average IQ?

Congratulations!

You actually stepped up on a science message board. Of course if Sciforum is not to your liking you can pick another message board but in the past you have tried to discredit every science message board on the internet so I can't take your claim seriously. However I will review your debate on Sciforum from the link you provided.

I read the exchange. First of all, if you wanted Bells to respond to your post you could have private messaged him or tagged him and asked for a reply. You debated Iceaura who completely dissected your arguments and refuted you then you threw a temper tantrum full of childish insults and stormed off on one page. That debate was a rolling freak show (on your part). The actual thread was about whether race was real and you filled it with racist propaganda from the same discredited academic racists all proponents of Scientific Racism post (e.g. Jensen and Rushton) which you were called out on.

Iceaura gave you reasonable advice. You showed that you aren't cut out for debate on a science forum and SpiderGoat correctly stated that being a "race-realist" simply makes you a racist who peddles pseudoscience which is the same thing I am saying in this thread.

The Sciforum veterans did a great job in refuting you which I have done in several threads here. I'm glad that you at least got some exposure on a science message board where the same arguments there are what I have been saying here. If you want to continue to debate on Scifurm we can discuss the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study or I can participate in that debate. Are you game?

 

You're the one claiming there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence from sources that validates that claim. Calling the reference to research that presents an alternative explanation (100% environmental cause) apologetics is intellectually dishonest. You haven't responded to the research I have presented for my position. You, Empress and others have merely danced around them. You in particular keep using racial slurs to make fun of Joseph Graves but you haven't provided any evidence to counter his arguments. I've also provided several other sources which you have ignored.

You are delusional if you think I need help debating the likes of you and Empress. How many debates with me have you fled from? I have debated Empress on two message boards she frequents, one of which where she was a moderator who abused her status by posting my IP address and email address, edited my posts and banned me in a fit of rage after I retaliated against her for posting photos of people being murdered by posting interracial porn during a debate she and another poster turned in to a flame war when I was being civil and trying to remain on-topic.

That is the level of debate I've gotten from people like her when debating on her turf. I have debated racists on their message boards for years sometimes being outnumbered by around 30-to-1. Why can't you debate me on an actual science message board? I invited Empress here but she'd rather post on a racist message board than stick around for a proper debate and when she does come back you see the level of debate she brings which is basically trolling.

If you can't debate on a science message board without getting banned then that says something about you not the other posters. The fact that scientifically literate posters are hostile towards your racist views says more about you than about them.

The reason why you keep complaining about Graves and using racial slurs including "Uncle Joe", "House Boy Graves", "House Scientist Graves" and making fun of which college he currently works at is because you're threatened by him. In all of these debates where you react with racist taunts when have you actually ever responded to the research presented? I haven't seen you do it once and certainly not in this thread.

OK Joseph Graves is an African-American Evolutionary Biologist. Why do you have a problem with that? Is it because you're racist and feel stupid due to your inability to respond to his research? Also notice that I've quoted several other scholars but you whine about Dr. Graves over and over and over with the same racist insults. I think you've developed an OCD ritual of whining about Graves. You can't help yourself but you can't refute his research either. Go ahead and try. See that you can't do it. After you've done that you can run from the debate again and claim that you're "giving me the last word."

We all know what you're really doing but you can pretend to be a legitimate Evo/Science poster who is too good to debate on science message boards if you want to.

 

No, one doesn't need extensive links for the numbers and Gap EVERYONE knows exists.

If, after near 100 YEARS of Consistent number differences among groups, then the Burden is on those claiming 'environment' as an explanation.
Especially and Again, as I said, because of great efforts of IQ researchers to take out the variables such as socioeconomic and use ie, Trans-Racial adoption studies.

The APA has said the Racial IQ Gap cannot be accounted for by Socioeconomic factors. Do we need to discuss if there IS a gap?
Really? Do you really need that 'Burden'?

So again, and we hardly need your usual Ridiculously long/Bury-em-with-BS definition/multi-citation of 'Burden', in yet another attempt to Shift it/Bury-em-BS!
It's incredible.
2+2=4 guy, we don't need you to post the Webster or Wiki entry on 'Math', in an attempt to look authoritative/scholarly or the usual attempt at volume as an illusion for knowledge.

IQ is 75% HERITABLE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates

Yes that's not group per se, but it's family, extended family etc, and only makes sense group/race is largely genetic as well.

You have established no such thing.
You just smeared.
BTW your study by Wicherts, and this is THEE highest estimate, is that Black IQ is 82, or Up to 82.
He works off/against Lynn's numbers.

And most Funnily, this all, AS I SAID, accepts the premise of Group/Race difference in IQ!
Burden shift again refuted/self-impeached.

I'm not, YOU are, and are so EXCLUSIVELY.
I oft say/elaborate on "what about Asian persecution" when people use the excuse.
"t26" "Interned"
https://www.google.com/search?q="taxonomy26"+interned+site:www.politicalforum.com&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwyOug7NfWAhVp7oMKHWgrCj8QrQIINSgEMAA&biw=1049&bih=456
Asian Civil Rights groups should hire me.

I've made twice as many string starts on general Evolution than I have on Race.
Three-Four times as many in general science here.
You Post RACE only.
You post Black/White Race only.

macro-Races doesn't preclude sub-groups
And I've been posting these numbers for Years. incl AT YOU.
Lynn! (chart now edited off by Wiki. Like virtually every Race/IQ chart that was ever there)

Race Differences in Intelligence (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race ------------------------------------- Mean I.Q -- Mean brain size (cc)
East-Asians (China, Taïwan, Japan, Korea) 105 ---------- 1416
Europeans --- - --- -- --- -- -- -- -- - -- --- -----100 ------- ----1369
South-East Asians - -- -- -- - ---- -- -- --- ------90 ------------1332
Pacific Islanders ------ --- -- - -- -- - -- - -- ----85------ -- ----1317
South Asians and North africans -- - --- -- --84 ------ ----- 1293
Africans---- --- --- ---- --- -- ---- -------- --- ---- 67 ------------1282
Australian aborigines ---- -- -- ---- -- - --- ---- 62 ------------1225​

The IQ scores above from Richard Lynn, who correlated 620 IQ tests of over 800,000 subjects.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rJtUG54tT...CbjWk/s400/401px-IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png
The IQ part alone formerly on the Wikipedia 'Race and IQ' page along with tons of other data, before it was Ravaged by the PC.

The Wiki page now unrecognizable from 6-8 years ago.. and containing little data, but alot of apologetics.
This is where Wiki fails, when PC/politics is at hand.

is this News? Burden shifting?
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1......0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.99....0.UscvNXWojwA

WTF. Quoting him isn't enough? I had to PM him!
This is so DISINGENUOUS as not be be believed.

But the fact is, and after reading more of his posts, it wasn't just the one post he didn't reply too.
My first Three posts made mincemeat out of everything he ever posted.
(ie, "you can't tell race from remains/blood", the ridiculous old "99.9%", etc x10)
He wanted No part of being refuted by Mainstream Sources.
He had no reply. He was pre-refuted/intimidated.

And iceaura a total washout who, Unlike me, whiffed on several demands for links, and had virtually No science/sources.
+

 

I didn't say anything about posting links to numbers. I said that if you're claiming there is a genetic component to group differences in IQ then the burden of proof is on you to show that. Empress claims there is. She hasn't provided evidence. She simply claims I haven't shown in detail how environment affects IQ when my claim is simply that a genetic component to the cause of group differences has been ruled out. I provided evidence from sources which she did not respond to and neither have you.

I've already replied to your sources on Socioeconomic Status and Transracial Adoption which you did NOT respond to but moreover I showed evidence from multiple sources showing that the hereditarian argument is based on a fallacy. You can not control for the environmental differences between demographic groups living in a racially stratified society. You can't control for racism because it not only affects people on a Socioeconomic level but on a psychological level. Controlling for Socioeconomic Status can't control for racism. Transracial Adoption can not either. This was also pointed out to you by Iceaura who listed prenatal factors that affect IQ which adoption can not control for.

"That doesn't work, even for most of the known major factors such as gestational toxin exposure, maternal stress, stereotype threat, vitamin and other dietary issues, and so forth."

- Iceaura on Sciforum in post #169

Socioeconomic factors are not the only environmental variables and they specifically rejected the idea that there is empirical support for a genetic component to the gap.

The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

Source: Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns American Psychologist, 51, 77–101 (1995)

What I find incredible is that I have refuted you point by point in this debate, you have not responded to my sources, Empress has no sources and you think that YOU are winning!

That is absolutely hilarious. I have provided evidence from credible sources showing that the claim of a genetic component to racial differences in IQ is false. You have failed to respond.

No, it doesn't. Within group heritability gives no indication for between group heritability. Intelligence is highly heritable which means that you are more likely than not to be as smart as your parents. Close family members will also show some genetic similarity in heritable traits including in mental ability. However when you start talking about large populations of people the genetic relationship becomes less significant. There is more genetic variation within geographic populations than between them and no scientific basis for claiming that genes related to intelligence are unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. I have posted several sources establishing that fact in this thread but this is one of the best summaries which addresses the fallacy of your heritability argument.

Even though this has been explained to you several times you have no rebuttal.

Are you denying that Rushton, Murray and Gottfredson are all academic racists? They are all Pioneer Fund Grantees. Rushton was at a time the President of the Pioneer Fund. They have all spoken at White Nationalist conferences or given interviews with alt-right Youtubers and bloggers and have been denounced by experts in their fields as racist ideologues. I have never seen Murray or Gottfredson involved in an academic debate to defend their research. The only debates I've seen of Rushton were with David Suzuki in 1989 where he was the laughing stock of the debate and Joseph Graves in 1997 where he had no cogent response to any of his arguments and never responded to him in print. Your sources are racist quacks and there is nothing wrong with saying that.

And where is your rebuttal to his arguments?

That's irrelevant given that I am debating the cause. I already accept that there are reported group differences in IQ and never disputed it in this thread. There are problems with the testing and reported data however the key issue is what the cause of the differences are. I have shown that there is no genetic component. You and others have not refuted this argument.

That's a lie considering I showed you a thread where I addressed the Asian-White IQ gap years ago and in a previous post showed you that Asian researchers have given cultural reasons for the Asian-White IQ gap as have others including Richard Nisbett, one of my main sources.

That is completely irrelevant and my focus has been on debunking Scientific Racism. It's not my fault that its proponents fixate on the Black-White IQ gap.

May be you should not rely so much on Wikipedia as a source since it can literally be edited by anyone and there is edit warring on controversial topics. So what you're saying here is that there is variation within sub-groups of macro-races. The problem with your argument is that that there is not only variation within macro-races but variation between macro-races. Meaning if we accept Lynn's numbers at face value Southeast Asians have lower IQs than Europeans. So you can't claim a racial hierarchy in IQ if there are significant differences between populations within racial groups compared to populations of other groups.

The chart appears to be suggesting that brain size determines IQ. We already know that Lynn's global IQ data is suspect given the errors outlined by Wicherts for Lynn's data on African IQ scores. We also know from previous discussions that brain size does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation. What is his source on brain size differences for this chart? If it is Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) then I have already shown you that this study rejects the claim that there are racial hierarchies in brain size or cranial capacity.

Several other scholars have rejected the claim of racial hierarchies in brain size as well.



Source: How “caucasoids” got such big crania and why they shrank: From Morton to Rushton Current Anthropology 42(1):69–95 (2001)

 

I have taken the liberty to email Bells about your post myself. If he replies I will let you know. As for iceaura he rejected your claims with arguments. You hurled childish insults at him and stormed off in a fit of rage. I could easily enter that thread and respond to your posts with sources however in my experience with you you rarely if ever respond to actual sources. You whine about too many sources, try to discredit sources and try to claim the superiority of your sources while demanding people respond to you but you rarely ever respond to actual research posted by others.

There's a reason why proponents of Scientific racism rarely debate opponents in an academic setting. They fear exposure and humiliation. There's no reason why you can't go to a science message board and establish yourself as a seasoned and respected poster other than your argument is simply not respected by the scientific community. I can debate anywhere and my only complaint is if I am mistreated not for being banned for violating the rules, being outnumbered or facing opponents hostile to my views. If you are a serious debater whose claims are widely accepted by the scientific community then prove it. All you have done is make excuses for why you can't debate on my level and flee when the debate gets too tough for you.

 

It's really too late.

Not only was he quoted by me/a New poster/red alert, and Whiffed, he's the moderator In the string, and no doubt read it over the few days it took create page 9.
I might add, this is Precisely the "shout down" "help" I said you needed.

Here's the Clown 'Bells' putting a perfectly legitimate thread/OP/Study in the "Cesspool," because he disagrees with the concept of difference, and feels it might reflect the views off those who disagree with him.

"Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability"
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/su...onal-differences-in-cognitive-ability.155804/

Bells' posts are filled with basic and Mindboggling Errors in that string as well. Too many to count.
It would take several days to correct the Clown on simple matters of fact.

That is Precisely the board I remember, where they just wiped out OPs they didn't like.
And it's precisely the Help you need to silence everyone who disagrees with you, and Why you try and Coerce people into going there.
Everyone, even those in good faith/with evidence needs to be silenced.
Eh, someone tried to multi report/ban me here too.
I wonder who?

Opposition must be silenced, it cannot be debated. If 'debated,' it consists of endless 2 foot long Repeat posts, with multi-quote boxes/boobtubes that anyone sane would vomit from being droned to death by.
NOT to be mistaken with "fleeing".
The idea being, no one on the planet could withstand endless spam/gratuitous last-wording of ANY point.

Non last-worders are "Flee-ers" in kwazy land, even/especially if they won the point.

There are only 2 kinds of people. Those who agree with you... and Racists/Scientific Racists.
"It's simply not possible there are genetic differences of any significance, or that there ARE races/subspecies by the same standards used in the rest of the animal world."
"Forget your lying eyes/blood tests/every stat you see, and some great scientists: it's all environmental and they're racists."

It really is a Bigoted/shut down state of affairs, partially noted in your Roker citation on pg one, where anyone wanting to do a study on differences can't get funding. Taboo, as Coyne says.
+

 

@Taxonomy26

I participated in the very same thread you are complaining that Bells put in the cesspool. The thread was started by Mikemikev, who has been banned on PoliticalForum, banned on virtually every message board I have seen him post on including racist message boards and has trolled Wikipedia with over 100 sockpuppets to promote Scientific Racism. He like you, is a racist pretending to be a serious science buff who loses his mind when he doesn't get his way and that is why he was banned. On Sciforum in addition to reasonable rules requesting civility they ask you to back up your claims with sources and when you don't do it you will have your thread closed, get banned and have your thread put in the cesspool to show what kind of trash doesn't belong on their site.

In your mind this is a display of intolerance towards a scientific viewpoint but to them this is sending the message that what you are promoting isn't science and that is my whole point in this thread. Pseudoscience is not science and all of you racists don't have credible scholars or sources to support your position. That thread in particular was used to promote a study that tried to use survey data to show that most intelligence researchers believe that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. In the thread Bells, myself and others showed that the methodology used to obtain their data was deliberately designed to manufacture the results that they wanted and that the authors set up their own journal to avoid peer-review.

The truth is that there is bias in scholarship and some fields of study do not qualify as legitimate science. Your topic of interest, Scientific Racism, is no more legitimate science than Intelligent Design. Racists and Creationists are peddlers of pseudoscience just like Astrologists, Cryptozoologists, Parapsychologists and countless others. You like Wikipedia right? Have a look at the list of topics that have been labeled pseudoscience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

• Scientific racism – claim that scientific evidence shows the inferiority or superiority of certain races.[170][171]

Your view is on the list. As for Coker you are missing his point. Yes, Scientific Racism has trouble getting funding in the academic community but it does so because it doesn't qualify as science. He stated himself that available research meets the test of pseudoscience. That's why virtually all research that promotes Scientific Racism has ties to think tanks and organizations with racist ideological agendas. The Pioneer Fund for example helped finance the American Eugenics Movement, Nazi Scientists and Segregationists. It's founder was quoted as saying he just wanted to prove that Blacks were inferior. Since the Civil Rights movement they have been the main organization that finances Scientific Racism and the research of the scholars they support is very popular among White Supremacists, White Nationalists and racists in general. There's no escaping this fact. There have been entire books written about this subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Funding-Scie...8&qid=1507169841&sr=8-1&keywords=pioneer+fund



The Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 by Wickliffe Preston Draper, is one of the most controversial nonprofit organizations in the United States. Long suspected of misusing social science to fuel the politics of oppression, the fund has specialized in supporting research that seeks to prove the genetic and intellectual inferiority of blacks while denying its ties to any political agenda.This powerful and provocative volume proves that the Pioneer Fund has indeed been the primary source for scientific racism. Revealing a lengthy history of concerted and clandestine activities and interests, The Funding of Scientific Racism examines for the first time archival correspondence that incriminates the fund's major players, including Draper, recently deceased president Harry F. Weyher, and others.Divulging evidence of the Pioneer Fund's political motivations, William H. Tucker links Draper to a Klansman's crusade to repatriate blacks in the 1930s. Subsequent directors and grantees are implicated in their support of campaigns organized in the 1960s to reverse the Brown decision, prevent passage of the Civil Rights Act, and implement a system of racially segregated private schools.Tucker shows that these and other projects have been officially sponsored by the Pioneer Fund or surreptitiously supervised by its directors. This evidence demonstrates that any results of genuine, scientific value produced with the fund's support have been a salutary, if incidental, consequence of its actual purpose: to provide ammunition for what has essentially been a lobbying campaign to prevent the full participation of blacks in society and the polity.


Now once again it seems you are fleeing from debate and making excuses not respond to my post which is full of counter sources. So when posters argue against you and don't back up their claims with sources they're not debating you fairly but when they do they're not worth responding to because they're bombarding you with too many facts backed by credible sources. No one in their right mind would take you seriously with that sort of approach to debate. As for multiple flags to get you banned, you broke the rules and I publicly told you I was reporting you and what I was reporting you for. I also asked the moderators in one report to review the entire thread to see that you were repeatedly violating the rules and trolling. Don't feel too bad about it. One of my posts was deleted too apparently in the process for suggesting that you derive pleasure from getting beaten in debate. I think the moderators are being fair. Your problem is that you don't know how to debate honestly and fairly. If you can't debate on a science message board without getting banned then that simply says something about you as a poster and the hostility towards your claims says something about how those claims are viewed by the scientific community. You and other racists aren't able to have a productive debate on science message boards because the scientifically literate posters recognize that what you're promoting isn't science.

 

Bells sent me a reply via private message:

I made Bells aware of this thread, your comments and the fact that you are posting on Sciforum as Yelena McMullen. You can of course respond to this message if you want to. He seems to believe you are a previously banned poster named David Mendlesohn but I doubt this after looking at his posts. Your writing style is easy to spot. In any case if you have been banned before they have a right to follow their rules of not allowing sockpuppets and ban you again. However I welcome open debate and would like to see you post on a science message board for a change. Don't get me wrong, racism is an important political topic and I'm glad that PoliticalForum has a section for this topic but I also feel it is being hijacked by racists like you to promote your racist pseudoscience. If you really want these theories to be accepted as science you should be able to debate on a science message board. I have no trouble refuting you point by point as I've done in this thread AGAIN but there aren't too many Egalitarians who have taken the time to refute Scientific Racism to the level I have on PoliticalForum. Challenging you to prove yourself on a science message board after your numerous defeats here is reasonable.

So you showed up on Sciforum. There are other science message boards out there if you don't like that one. I agree with much of Bell's assessment though of your debate patterns and that of racists in general. You have ignored arguments and in fact entire posts of mine in this thread while complaining about my sources and making excuses not to respond to them. All the while you demand that I reply to you. You have simply lost all credibility as the serious debater you claim to be. Ignoring sources, whining, flaming, fleeing when you are defeated and then showing up again to perform the same routine are the behavioral patterns of a troll.

 

LOFL
I am not, nor have never used the handle/name 'David', 'David Mendelson', or Anything like it. My actual name doesn't resemble it either.
Love to see those posts he thinks are me! LINK?
What a Pathetic dodge!

His message just a Deflection, unwittingly proving my point.
He admittedly saw, but could Not answer my post TO HIM, nor any of my first three, which debunked most of what he's ever said on the topic.

That's how it remains.


PS: I googled the handle and sciforums
"David Mendlesohn" sciforums
https://www.google.com/search?q="David+Mendlesohn"+sciforums&oq="David+Mendlesohn"+sciforums&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2954.6607.0.7412.10.10.0.0.0.0.150.1392.0j10.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.1251...0i13k1j0i13i10k1j0i13i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.8Cfz-KbbdnA

and he is a recent and active poster, previous in that same string, whose posts do NOT resemble mine, nor how I would come onto a board with my seminal Links.
Even you know that!

Doesn't look like he's "Banned" either.
David Mendlesohn
Registered Member
WTF!
What a Spectacular Liar this 'Bells' is.
Simply and Again:
He could Not reply to me Outing his stupendous Congo Lie, or anything else.

That dishonest/biased POS is who you want refereeing.
He already lost/whiffed on the whole debate/basics I presented.

+

 

I linked Bells to the thread and told him you were Yelena McMullen. Bells is the one who thought you were David and told me David was banned by the site admin. I looked on the banned list and found the full name. He is on the ban list which you can check for yourself. He was banned by James R.



I also told Bells I don't think that's you because your writing style is different which I also said in my previous post. I am very good at identifying writing styles. I recognized Mikemikev as Phill based on his writing style, arguments and sources. So like I said, I don't think you're David but I do recall you admitting to being banned from Sciforum before. However that doesn't matter to me. I'm not a moderator there. I'm not in the business of identifying banned members and hunting down their sockpuppets (though I had experience doing that as a moderator and Admin on other boards). Now that we have that matter cleared up I will let you decide if you want to post on Sciforum any more or not. That's your business. If you want to stay in this race-relations sub-forum on PoliticalForum where very few Egalitarians are interested in challenging you that is your business. I'm not afraid to debate any where. As long as I am treated fairly and allowed to post on a board with reasonable rules I am down for debate. But I will be honest, I am getting bored of you as it's like hitting a punching bag.

 

@Taxonomy26

I replied to you in the thread on Sciforum that you showed me. You haven't replied to any of my sources in this thread. You've already been shut down here but if you want to continue the debate on Sciforum you can do it. There's only ONE source in my post that I request you reply to. Beyond that I even brought to Bell's attention that you're saying he didn't reply to your source. But that's up to him if he wants to reply to it. I've been more than fair to you. If you want to prove you are not a troll this is your opportunity do it. Ignoring sources and demanding that posters only reply to your arguments is a signature tactic of trolls.

 

Arguing with racist about their pseudoscience is a null proposition.

The racist is emotionally and intellectually entrenched so when shown a convenient "justification" for their bigotry, no amount of common sense, reason or fact will change their mind. In fact, any evidence to the contrary usually just makes them more obstinate.

In this particular instance I find it ironic that the racist argument first insists that "race" remains a valid scientific concept and second that human intelligence is singularly defined by IQ, which is also no longer a valid scientific concept.


This back and forth reminds me of my encounters with scumbag holocaust deniers.

I am just so bigoted against bigots I can't tell you, martha.

 

You are correct. That is why the racists in this thread have given up. When their dishonest debate tactics don't work they flee and crawl back under their rock. My challenges are more to expose the fact that I am giving them chances to show that they are different than what I say and let them expose their incompetence based on their inaction rather than seriously believing that they are capable of rational discussion. Taxonomy26, Empress, Rayznack and other racists have been arguing in the same manner for years using the same discredited arguments, same sources and same logical fallacies all to promote their racist ideological agenda. They are racist trolls and they shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

Well their arguments cannot be taken seriously but their hatred and animous towards their fellow citizens - that is a serious thing.

 

Yes, because we know from history and current events what that leads to. I never took the idea of White Nationalism seriously. I mean you can look at the history of atrocities related to racism and know that racist ideology can be disastrous but I've never been worried about a bunch of racists taking over the world and creating all White Nations by mass deporting non-Whites or however they plan to do that. That is a joke to me. I believe racism on that scale has no chance of ever being put in to practice because we live in a different world. However racists committing hate crimes and terrorist attacks is a problem. Especially these lone wolves.

Terror networks are easy to break up but when you have one person with a gun and a crazy idea who keeps their plans to themselves until they carry out their attack. That is a real problem and it is becoming more frequent every year. White Supremacists are not the only ones doing it however their racist propaganda is protected under free speech and they are more easily able to recruit people to think like them because in the world we live in it's not illegal to hate people. What makes this dangerous is when some deranged nutcase takes their hate to the next level and starts killing as many people as they can. The government really needs to crack down on these people.

 

What an alternative universe you must inhabit.

Back in reality, you have an established record of failing to defend your sources, fleeing direct questioning, and evading countervailing evidence.

None of your interlocutors have ever managed to take you seriously, and have simply moved on when it became apparent you're merely unreasonable and full of canned responses.

You're a meme and managed to gain some notoriety for failing to read one single book over the course of 4 years.

The evidence of racial cognitive and behavioral differences is overwhelming and supplemented daily. You literally have only a handful of tattered old studies and evidence against the mountain of race based evidence you will never address in good faith.

It's laughable how delirious you are after years of being trounced to self-congratulate yourself with your twisted delusions that your opponents were defeated because they in reality moved on after pummeling your arguments beyond recognition.

 

That's hilarious. Who are these opponents? You? Empress? Taxonomy26? Mikemikev?

You got banned from Sciforum for failing to back up your claims with credible sources. You have been promoting the discredited arguments of Rushton for years. I was beating opponents on racist message boards like Frank on The Phora years before I encountered you. Frank for example was a Rushton obsessed sycophant who had himself banned in a fit of rage after failing to manipulate me in to leaving The Phora and was too much of a coward to debate editors on Wikipedia. He wouldn't cut it on a science message board. Neither did you.

Mikemikev has been trolling message boards for years. Even other racists don't like him and ban him. He has over 100 sockpuppets banned on Wikipedia. He also got banned on Sciforum, PoliticalForum and even has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page up documenting his foolishness.

Empress is a troll who has freely admitted she has no primary sources to defend her claims and engages in burden of proof shifting to avoid a real debate. She also has a bad reputation even on the racist message boards she frequents. When I showed up to a message board where she was a moderator she and this other racist nutcase derailed the thread, turning it in to a flame war and then she lost her cool and abused her moderator privileges by posting my email and IP address in retaliation for me posting interracial pornography to get back at her for posting images of Black people being murdered (and other disgusting imagery including bestiality). She's not a serious debater. She ducked going to Sciforum and as for the Nisbett book I read it. She can debate the topic on a science message board if she's serious but every time I mention this she goes on extended hiatus from the board. Since she can't respond to my sources any way it doesn't matter.

Do we even need to get in to my repeated destruction of Taxonomy26? How many times have I shut him down this year? In one thread I referenced 40 scholars and a multitude of sources. He couldn't respond to any of them.

But hey he can pass the torch to you if you feel up for debate. Can you name any scholars in the past 10 years who support your position that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence who have presented their findings in an academic setting and defended their research against an opponent in an academic arena? Name just one and post the video evidence. Otherwise I've proven my point. None of your sources have any credibility. They are just peddlers of racist pseudoscience who have ruined their reputations obsessing over a topic that the scientific community doesn't take seriously.

I have debated on racist cesspool forums being outnumbered around 30-to-1. The one time I have seen you step up on a message board with a scientifically literate community of posters you were refuted including by yours truly and banned after being given numerous chances to defend your arguments. You have hijacked this sub-forum on this message board to promote racist pseudoscience for years because you know that with a smaller group of posters you won't face much opposition. You got exposed. I have beaten you in debate numerous times so if you want it again be my guest.

If you can respond to any of my sources in this thread we can have a debate. Otherwise you will be dismissed as just another troll.

 

You always flee when presented with facts.

You have no response to brain volume differences, adoption studies or the fact the IQ gap has not significantly shrunk in one century. You cannot support your claim the northeast asian/white IQ gap is cultural, and have no argument why northeast asians have persistently higher IQ in both northeast asian and white society than whites. Adoption studies show northeast asians and blacks raised by whites have higher and lower IQ than whites, respectively. IQ gene frequencies and brain volume differ by race and correspond to the rqcial IQ hierarchy. There is no northeast asian society anywhere in the world as violent and with as low IQ as average black societies, and no black society with as high IQ and low violence as average northeast asian societies.

 

You've been making the same rehashed arguments for years. Only in your mind do they have any scientific credibility. You also have a habit of completely ignoring sources while demanding everyone address your arguments. Virtually all of your arguments have been addressed in this thread.

Examples:

Brain size/volume was addressed in post #35.

Adoption studies were addressed in post #16.

The reduction of the IQ gap was addressed in post #32.

The Asian-White IQ gap was also addressed in post #32.

IQ genes and their lack of racial association were addressed in post #4.

You have no scientific basis for claiming that racial background determines the average intelligence or crime rate of a nation. That claim is easily refuted by looking at facts of history such as historical atrocities and cultures changing over short time scales (ex. look at Japanese culture today and look at the way it was during World War II). Your claims on testosterone and aggressive genes causing certain races to be more biologically prone to violence were refuted in past discussions.

So when you can respond to all of those sources that refute your arguments point by point you can begin to show that you can debate on my level. Beyond those discredited claims this thread is about the fact that Scientific Racism is a pseudoscientific topic with no major support in the scientific community. Taxonomy26 failed to provide even a single scholar in the past 10 years who has presented research in an academic setting supporting the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in mental characteristics and defended those claims in debate with an opponent in an academic setting.

Where is that research? Who do you have as sources supporting your views outside of Pioneer Fund grantees and scholars who have been publicly denounced by scientists as academic racists? Do you have any? You claim my sources are outdated but I continue to read books that have been published in the last few years. Credible scholars such as Biological Anthropologists, Geneticists, Evolutionary Biologists, Psychologists, Archeologists and Historians have debunked this racist garbage and I have spoken to several of them via email about their work, read their books as well as their studies and posted all of this information. I am also able to post on science message boards and contribute positively to these discussions without getting banned for not backing up my claims with sources. I've simply left you in the dust on this subject.

Prove me wrong.