Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

No, you're kissing his ass as you see him as an ally against a common enemy. You wouldn't want him marrying your children and you know it.

 

Why am I not surprise you can't tell the difference between deference and ass kissing. Semantics and even obvious nuances therein not being a particular strength of yours.

And I suggest you not make such definitive statements in such complete ignorance, regardless of how much experience you might have doing so.

 

You're kissing his ass and banding with him because you hate my guts as much as he does. Anyone with basic observational abilities can see it a mile off.

Tell me again how you can "prove" 1 million people were gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau and cremated in crematoria that often weren't functioning and woefully lacked the capacity. I gotta hear it. Really.

 

Oh no, I was merely wondering why is perfectly acceptable for you to pass psychological judgements but not your opponent.

And btw, you tried to deflect from the very obvious projection we were specifically referring to. Classic zero info tactic


But you are correct I hate racists as virulently and relentlessly as they do. And you know what?

I find the vast majority of them can't stand that kind of heat.

All they do is whinge about being mistreated and insulted and how they are being bullied and lied about. Seems so many of them just can't come to grips with openly admitting that in reality they are just getting back some of the same crap they dish out. So many I've met are not only intellectual bankrupts but intellectual cowards.

Have you observed this phenomena amongst your fellows as well?

 

Speaking of "Reading Comprehension"...
I see you got a 'like' from Ejay for this Race Realist post!
That's right, according to the person who gave you that like, there are No significant differences, especially in IQ.

No need to "Devalue" anyone even if there are, just as you Unwittingly did, Admit there are differences: Relative advantages/disadvantages between groups/your-word "Races".

Welcome to Reality/My side, both in sentiment and terminology.
The side you thought you weren't on.

And...
Should people Who are more "commonly"/on-average better at IQ (SAT/academic tests) be Ousted from there rightful places at your university or any another for those less good?
Should those NOT "commonly"/on-average "better" at athletics, ie, 'white' people, demand 50% of the NBA spots?

We need only do what you did. Acknowledge which "Races" are "Commonly"/On Average, better at which things!

Race Realism unwittingly affirmed by Two ostensible opponents.
Incredible. (.... verbal IQ demo)


EDIT:
Note below, Ejays FIFTH Posting of the 'Flower Boxes' Graphic/link in less than 10 full pages
ALL his posts are Repeats, Three-peats, Four-peats, and more. Including at least 20 Graves citations.... all themselves, repeats.
"Flee"?
Who wouldn't get Flabbergasted/Fed-up by these Non-conversant and Intentional Link-Dumping/Page-sprawling Burial attempts.
Link-Bombing/Carpet-Posting.
And it's the SAME in All Ejay threads.
He will out-last, last-word you if you are normal, and then claim you "fled."
+

 

I believe its all in the vain hope that something will enventually sink in, but alas, I doubt he'll give up tho, cause he's a persistent anti racist. He even appears sincere in his non-hatred.

AS one bigot to another, he just can't understand that it doesn't matter what facts are presented we'll always find a way to reject those facts and spin it to justify our hatreds. Its just standard bigot operating procedure but like anything I guess if you don't "feel" you it, you don't know it.

 

Non-Hatred? I've been banned from racist message boards for saying it should be illegal to be racist under penalty of death, that all White Supremacists should be legally exterminated and for spamming interracial porn to anger, humiliate and emasculate White Supremacist men as well as embarrass and slut shame White Supremacist women. You can ask Empress for details and evidence of that. My hatred for racists is stronger than most. I am only being civil here because there is a demand for it.

Also I am not under any illusion that racists are going to accept the research I'm posting. The purpose is only to shut them down and show that they don't have the scientific high ground. My whole purpose for posting about racism on the internet is actually because of fights in grade school where I viciously beat kids for making racist comments to me.

 

Again, which studies support your claim blacks and whites have equal brain volume?

Why do you ignore numerous 20th and 21st century studies which contradict your narrative?

 

I was being generous as a counterpoint to my highly bigoted and express descriptive opinion of scumbag racists.

OTOH, I do commend your stance, I've personally been thrown off stormfront three different times back in my younger years while expanding my knowledge base of their strategies, tactics and bumperstickers. With me it started with discovering there was such a thing as holocaust denial and I just found that to be both personally and familialy offensive. Snowballed from there.

 

Did I claim that "Blacks" and "Whites" have equal brain volume or did I state that there is no scientific basis to the claim that human evolution has resulted in racial hierarchies in brain size that cause differences in intelligence? If you are disputing this position then post sources supporting your argument. Stop attacking strawmen and trolling with leading questions and burden of proof shifting. You have been provided with plenty of evidence supporting my position and offered nothing in return that challenges it.

 

The biggest roadblock to racial equality is the fact feminism has been sewn to its hip.
You can't attach a lie to a truth and then complain that the truth is yet to be reality.
Life isn't a bill in congress.

 

Those who want true racial equality will have to drop the opportunist left that would never get rid of the donkey pulling the cart.

 

By the way, this is such a ridiculous strawman. If there was a causal relationship between larger brain size and greater intelligence then all people with exceptionally high intelligence would have exceptionally large brains. Can you name any world class powerlifters with below average bicep circumference? Just because there are other causative factors related to strength or intelligence doesn't mean that we can dismiss the fact that one variable has been ruled out as a determinant of a trait.

You will never be able to find a powerlifter with small biceps because muscular development is essential to gaining strength. Likewise Albert Einstein's brain being below average in size does in fact prove that brain size does not determine intelligence at least with normal, healthy brains. Low correlations can be explained by environmental factors that have nothing to do with genetic differences between populations or races. This is actually exactly what has been argued by several of my sources.

Start at 22:55



I consider the whole brain size issue to be a red-herring. It's one type of indirect evidence which is all that Rushton has, in my opinion, in favor of his view. There is a group in Ecuador where some individuals have head sizes that are 4 standard deviations below the average. That's a lot! That's a huge difference. These people actually get better grades in school than the other people in their community. - Richard Nisbett


Thus it is entirely possible that brain mass may have some relation to cognitive performance. However, one must take a statement like this with extreme caution (as the psychometricians do not). It is one thing to suggest that differences in brain mass may influence some aspects of cognitive performance. It is another to suggest that any observed differences in this trait result from solely genetic factors. It is even a greater leap to then claim that differences in reported cognitive performances between human subpopulations result from such a purported mechanism. The work concerning the neural basis of human intellect is in its infancy. - Joseph Graves

Source: The misuse of life history theory: J.P. Rushton and the pseudoscience of racial hierarchy. In J. Fish ed. Understanding Race and Intelligence , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 43 -57 (2002)

Finding a study that shows equal brain volume between racial groups is not necessary given that there is no scientific basis for claiming a causal relationship between brain size and intelligence. The scientific literature does not support the claim that there are racial hierarchies in brain size.....

IQ and Brain Size. In humans the brain is large relative to body size. Gross correlations of the body size to brain size allometry seem to predict the relative behavioral difference at the species level well. However, there is no direct evidence that such data accurately reflect anything within species. One of the fundamentally unresolved questions in research concerning early hominid evolution is how much brain size is necessary to control how much intelligent behavior. We know that large areas of the human brain can be destroyed without altering human behavior in any way.

Thus, there seem to be many reserve neurons in the human brain that we can normally do without. We know nothing for certain about how selective pressures in early hominids might have led to increasing brain capacity. We also know nothing for certain about the significance of individual neural capacity and its relation to intelligence (e.g., classic discussion on natural selection and the mental capacity of mankind; Dobzhansky & Montagu, 1947; Purves, 1994). Even if we were willing to accept the validity of standardized testing as a means for assessing innate cognitive ability (and remember, I do not!), there has never been a scientifically acceptable study that supports the hypothesis that intelligence (i.e., IQ scores) is dependent on brain size (Gould, 1996; Montague, 1974; Tobias, 1970).

Even allowing Rushton's assertion that there is a different allometry between races, this would imply that on average within any race people with larger heads have greater cognitive abilities, and therefore score higher on IQ tests. Taken a step farther, this analysis suggests that within races, the average-sized man is endowed with greater innate cognitive ability than women simply due to sexual dimorphism in size.


Rushton cited and dismissed Tobias (1970) concerning the inadequacy of studies of brain anatomy and measures of intelligence. A more objective analysis of this study shows that such a flippant dismissal is unwarranted. Tobias first reviewed the racist history of brain measures and intelligence. Throughout this study he pointed to inconsistencies of the racial data concerning cranial volume, body weight, height, brain weight, calculations of excess neurons, and so on. Table 3.7 give Tobias's calculation of the number of excess neurons in various human groups normalized by body size...

These results are inconsistent with Rushton's views of intelligence and race (American Negroes > American Whites, French, and English). Again these calculations are not cited by Rushton, even though he cited figures that are consistent with his analysis in chapter 6. Tobias (1970) also cited a number of environmental conditions that affect brain size that could not have been controlled in all the previous studies of brain size (nutritional state, disease condition, environmental stimuli, occupational group, etc.). Finally, he also discussed a number of artifacts of preparation of brain samples for analysis that are not easily dismissed (cause of death, lapse of time after death, treatment of brain after death, anatomical level of severance, presence or absence of meninges, presence or absence of blood vessels). He concluded that all existing studies of brain size and intelligence were meaningless due to the abundance of these errors in procedure and interpretation.

Source: The misuse of life history theory: J.P. Rushton and the pseudoscience of racial hierarchy. In J. Fish ed. Understanding Race and Intelligence , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 43 -57 (2002)

 

My post was a simple "if, then" statement. It assumes that racists are correct, and then it asks you to decide who is less valuable.

You have to answer the hypothetical question, "if your little sister is not that smart, is it ok to lynch her, like it is black folk?"

 

Let's consult an expert then.

Professional Psychologist's Assessment of Rayznack

Your opponent is an idiot. - Richard Nisbett

Richard Nisbett



https://bigthink.com/experts/richard-nisbett

Richard E. Nisbett is Theodore M. Newcomb Distinguished Professor of social psychology and co-director of the Culture and Cognition program at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Nisbett's research interests are in social cognition, culture, social class, and aging. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University, where his advisor was Stanley Schachter, whose other students at that time included Lee Ross and Judith Rodin.

Perhaps his most influential publication is "Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes" (with T. D. Wilson, 1977, Psychological Review, 84, 231–259), one of the most often cited psychology articles published in the seventies. This article was the first comprehensive, empirically based argument that a variety of mental processes responsible for preferences, choices, and emotions are inaccessible to conscious awareness. Nisbett and Wilson contended that introspective reports can provide only an account of "what people think about how they think," but not "how they really think." Some cognitive psychologists disputed this claim, with Ericsson and Simon (1980) offering an alternative perspective.

Nisbett's book The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... And Why (Free Press; 2003) contends that "human cognition is not everywhere the same," that Asians and Westerners "have maintained very different systems of thought for thousands of years," and that these differences are scientifically measurable. Nisbett's book, Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count, argues that environmental factors dominate genetic factors in determining intelligence.

In 2010 Nisbett wrote Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. The book reviewed extensive favorable attention in the press and from some fellow academics; for example, University of Pennsylvania psychologist Daniel Osherson wrote that the book was a "hugely important analysis of the determinants of IQ". On the other hand, more critical reviewers argued that the book failed to grapple with the strongest evidence for genetic factors in individual and group intelligence differences.

With Edward E. Jones, he named the actor–observer bias, the phenomenon where people acting and people observing use different explanations for why a behavior occurs.

Curriculum Vitae for Richard E. Nisbett

Employment History:

The University of Michigan
Research Professor, Institute for Social Research, 2003-
Theodore M. Newcomb Distinguished University Professor, 1992-
Theodore M. Newcomb Professor of Psychology, 1989-1992.
Co-Director, Culture and Cognition Program, 1991-
Director, Research Center for Group Dynamics, 1989-1996.
Director, Cognitive Science Program, 1983-1984.
Senior Research Scientist, Research Center for Group Dynamics, 1997-2003
Research Scientist, Research Center for Group Dynamics, 1978-1997.
Professor of Psychology, 1976-.
Associate Professor of Psychology, 1971-1976.

Yale University
Assistant Professor of Psychology, 1966-1971.

Education:

A.B., 1962, Tufts University, Psychology major.
Ph.D., 1966, Columbia University, Department of Social Psychology.

Undergraduate Honors:

A.B. Summa cum laude, Society of Scholars, Phi Beta Kappa, Tau Kappa
Alpha, Psi Chi, Wendell Phillips Prize Fellowship.

Graduate Honors:

University Fellow, 1962-1963; President's Fellow, 1963-1965; John W. Burgess Honorary
Fellowship 1964; NSF Fellow, 1965-1966

If you have any credibility to speak on the subject of psychology then why were you ignorant of the fact that one of the books you claim to have read in college supports research that is central to my argument?

"It is in light of that you cannot invoke these issues merely having existed in time as proof of anything. That's still a correlation/causation fallacy. You're just taking Critical Race Theory and trying to apply it to psychology." - Empress

(Start 47:00)



If you watch the part of the video discussing the cause of racial IQ gaps you will see that the Yale Professor uses the exact same argument as Graves and uses Lewontin's plants example that is in Figure 10.15 in Myer's book.

You can watch the Graves vs. Rushton debate for yourself and see that Rushton had no rebuttal to any of Graves arguments.



(Start at 1:46:53)

"The fact that African-Americans or any other group may score differently from another doesn't tell you about the nature. The environmental difference, you simply can't compare the genetic basis, it's pure and simple quantitative genetics. You don't even have to know the nature of the environment. It's simply the fact the two groups are not comparably the same in environmental conditions that make any apportions in the genetic variance of a trait impossible. So you can find that in Falconer's Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. - Joseph Graves

Every time this information has been brought up all Empress had done is squabble over Graves' heritability estimate for IQ and bring up The Wilson Effect which is completely irrelevant to the argument in question (See: Logical Fallacy - Changing the Subject). If you can't respond to the claim central to your opponent's argument then you are trolling.

 

Endless misdirection. You're prattling about giving sources for a discussion I was not involved in with you here. Your lacking sources are those pertaining to the "blame white people" argument which is what your discrimination/poverty argument boils down to.

Now where is your defense of my criticisms of your sources?

 

And since you cite Nisbett again, you can defend his bad methods from the criticisms of his peers:

http://laplab.ucsd.edu/articles2/Lee2010.pdf

I asked you to defend using him as a source in April of 2014 and you continue to evade.

Sept 15, 2015:

You've had ample time. Now where is your defense of your using conclusions from this man that are flawed and why do you think we are going to accept your using this man as a source when you cannot defend criticisms of his deeply flawed methods and conclusions?

You have yet to explain why the Wilson Effect isn't relevant when you cite a study that purports to show the IQ gap is closing which used critically flawed calculation methods to determine this. Where is your scholarly explanation - not a vague brushoff - of why falsely assuming consistent environmental influence on human IQ is valid in spite of the facts?

Invoking rats and plants and quoting a biologist making comments outside of his field of expertise isn't an answer for your flawed sources. And why do you keep ignoring studies I post regarding the decreasing environmental impact on IQ?

Why use sources you can't defend and then when confronted, try to deflect to rats and plants?

 

You are literally quoting text with links to me addressing your arguments on the direct effect environmental inequality, caused by racial discrimination, has on IQ.

 

I gave you multiple sources showing studies you invoke are deeply flawed and I follow up with multiple sources showing WHY your source is deeply flawed: Environmental impact on IQ lessens in the maturation process, therefore your thesis is invalid on its face, not counting that I showed that the specific environmental causes you claim do not line up with research. Indeed on that, you also try to stretch the Myers textbook in that regard, using your old tactic of "environment influence equals racist." Nope. Doesn't say that. Anywhere.

You have no refutation yet continue to posit your position is accurate in light of your sources going down like dominoes.

This is another odd, vague brushoff statement on your part.

You have also not answered as to how we know unequal outcomes are caused by environment but not IQ's impact on one's environment.

 

Hail Stalin.

 

Highly unlikely since your "argument" consists of weak-kneed attempts at internet bullying which you think are some great heroic stance.

Try an intelligent, honest discourse with people.

 

Nisbett doesn't need defense from me against one critic. His work has been well received by the academic community in general. The Wilson Effect has absolutely no relevance to the cause of racial differences in IQ. Cite any scholar you like who claims otherwise. Nisbett directly addresses IQ gaps widening with age which can be interpreted as the environment worsening with age which is worse for Blacks than for Whites. Your ignorance of quantitative genetics, which is addressed in a book you claim you read, is the reason why you don't understand that The Wilson Effect is irrelevant to my argument.

Your inability to respond to my argument with direct rebuttals from sources that challenge it is why you are being accused of trolling.

I actually did respond to this absurd statement in post #165.

"This again shows your ignorance of the argument I have presented and of gene x environment interactions. You can't speculate on the genetic potential of a population for a phenotypic trait like intelligence without showing that the environment between groups being compared are equal. At no point in American history have Blacks lived in an equal environment to Whites. The only way to show experimentally that Whites have greater genetic potential for intelligence would be to reverse the roles. Have White people endure slavery, segregation and Jim Crow for the same length of time with the same level of discrimination and the environmental inequality that results from it and then show that their IQ is still normal and then you will have proven that Whites are innately superior in intelligence to Blacks.

I have provided plenty of scientific evidence showing that there is no scientific basis for claiming a genetic component to racial differences in IQ and you have failed to respond to any of it. You won't because you can't." - EgalitarianJay02

 

Well considering you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to substantiate your bogus claims of indepth academic research done in arriving at your conclusion of holocaust denial. I'd say you are a tad confused.

I would be delighted to engage in with any intelligent and honest person on the subject.
Would it be too much to ask to pointme in the direction of someone like that?

No heroic stance.

Merely a deep desire to expose the intellectual and emotional bankruptcy of cowardly jew haters and nazis and white supremacists for what they are.

 

Since you clearly cannot prove the mass gassings and feel the need to deflect the burden of proof on those who question you, again I ask why you think it appropriate to attack those who question your claims.

Another basic facet of adult logic that's totally flown over your head: Attacking X doesn't prove Y correct. You have to prove Y correct on its own right, and you clearly cannot.

You mean a time set aside for where you prove nothing and bash, right?

You think you're quite the stud here, attempting to bully women into submission online with a slew of verbal assaults.

Try harder, old man.

 

So you've completely abandoned a promise you made in 2015 regarding a guy you couldn't defend in 2014. Not surprised. You've been doing it for 3 years but only now admit you've abandoned the promised effort.

You kept trying to stall and I wouldn't let you get away with it, so here you are trying to post his CV as "proof" his work is airtight.

Yes, you need to defend your sources, and how many critics were mentioned is not relevant but you're trying to use it as an excuse to evade. Nisbett the fraudulent coward hasn't responded to Lee in 8 years, thus he left you high and dry, and you keep using his work anyway because of your obvious confirmation bias.

Again, you have offered no explanation for the irrelevance of the Wilson Effect that uses valid scientific sources, rather choosing to making an off-handed statement, continuing to exaggerate the environmental impact on adult IQ as well as failing to prove the two claimed factors you name are THE reason for group IQ gaps.

Please explain how IQ gaps widening with age can be explained with worsening environment, when adult IQ is highly heritable and environmental effects on adult IQ are substantially less. I already asked for this explanation - and when I say explanation I don't mean off-the-cuff motivated reasoning - I mean scientific sources.

You have no business demanding sources from others when you keep evading your own.

A simple search of this thread proves you wrong. I have cited multiple direct studies related to the issue for which you've yet to respond likewise to. Claiming I am "trolling" and "not responding" is an outright lie.

Nope. You invoked correlation/causation fallacy and nothing more.

Correlation/causation fallacy.

If all else fails, invoke racial grievance narrative. That's not scientific. That's Critical Race Theory.