Why Scientific Racism shouldn't be taken seriously

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Egalitarianjay02, Oct 2, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I read the book then re-read Lee's article and concluded that there was nothing worth responding to. Calling Nisbett a fraudulent coward in light of his standing in the academic community is ridiculous and childish.

    That's the type of logic I've come to expect from you. You have the audacity to complain about internet bullying when you have advocated genocide against entire ethnic groups, used racial slurs against posters, posted images of people being murdered and said that a Jewish poster should be thrown in a concentration camp all while denying that you are a racist and a Jew hater! You also have a reputation for abusing your moderation powers including editing posts, posting IP addresses and email addresses but you want to talk about cyberbullying? Look lady, you've obviously got mental issues. If you think it's funny to claim that you want to mass murder people and celebrate their deaths by having hot Nazi sex with your White Supremacist lover in order to produce Aryan legions that's your business however don't come on a message board claiming you are here for honest, intelligent discussion and then accuse other posters of being racists while denying the Holocaust and promoting Scientific Racism. The moderators are being very generous with you, protecting you from embarrassment which you would never afford posters on message boards where you are a moderator. On a science message board you would get banned very quickly for your foolishness. So I've changed my mind on Nisbett vs. Lee because I have no respect for you as a debater. If you want to debate psychology in detail you can do it on Sciforum. I am sticking to my core argument in this thread which you are not able to challenge.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  2. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    His pointing out critical flaws in his methodology and conclusions are well worth responding to. You simply cannot do it because Nisbett cannot. This is face-saving nonsense. You're flatly lying as you never reported back in 2015 after you got this book, and continued into this year "promising" you'd address the review by making a thread here even into last year.

    From April 2014:

    So you directed us to research which is highly flawed and contains leaps of conclusion but you magically don't need to defend them based on your personal judgment when you lack any kind of scholarly background in psychology... And you want us to believe that.

    March, 2016:

    You shouldn't run con on a forum when your posts proving otherwise are still there for all to see.

    The problem is you magically cease defending your sources right when someone points out that scholars have found critical problems with them, at which time you say it's "not worth" defending even while you keep insisting the flawed conclusions they reached are still valid and attempt to defend it with nonsense like rats and flowers.

    And you keep going in circles with it. You can't even explain why the Wilson Effect is irrelevant and how black adult IQ is a response to worsening environmental effects when science has shown that adult IQ is far less impacted by environment than toddlers. That's scientifically incoherent and yet you cling.

    You're too emotionally invested in the idea of blanket blame of white people, so you'll keep peddling it and crying racist.

    Off-topic post. I thought you were upset about the topic being derailed here?

    Conflating someone attempting to ideologically bully someone and someone saying things you hate are not comparable. You aren't even honest enough to post in context. Many of those posts were sarcastic or in jest, and you purposely conflated them with a Big Racist Conspiracy.

    You're an opportunist to your bone marrow.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  3. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe's Jonsa's comments are sarcastic and in jest. Would you hold him to the same standard? You can try to save face and just say that you were kidding but there are real victims of the people you are making fun of. When you post images of people being murdered or celebrate the death of someone that isn't funny under any circumstances. That's someone's life that's actually been lost. Saying that a Jewish poster should be thrown in a concentration camp is also horribly offensive and cyber bullying as is telling someone they need to pour beer on their butthole and get raped by Blacks. You say these things while denying being racist or a Jew hater so you deserve to be called out on them.

    You're not posting on topic any way so there's no harm in bringing this up. The thread has been derailed for many pages now as no one has challenged my central argument. As for the Wilson Effect while the heritability of IQ stabilizes in adulthood there is still an environmental factor. If the heritability of adult IQ is 80% that 20% can still explain differences between groups which is acknowledged as a plausible explanation by Bouchard. I don't know any scholars who have said that The Wilson Effect challenges the notion that there is no genetic component to racial differences in IQ. Do you?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  4. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sadly you conflate quote mines from forums from years ago with an active conversation on this thread. That's pretty desperate.

    You really should stay on topic or a mod may delete these thread-derailing posts of yours.

    You mentioned that "discrimination and poverty" caused the black/white IQ gap, so it IS on topic as YOU made the assertion. Yet again this is just another dodge of yours, specifically timed when you're at a loss of what to say per your source quality and your continued bad habit to stretch conclusions.

    You're now backtracking: You cite authors who falsely concluded a consistent environmental impact of IQ as proof, now you're saying that even if there is far more heritiability in adult IQ than environmental, your environment-explains-big-gaps thesis still holds while in other posts you're pretending that you concluded in 2014 that there was nothing in Nisbett's work that was in need of defense, even in though in the same time frame it was your go-to citation to "prove" that the black/white IQ gap is caused by racial oppression.

    And your above post, like your posts are increasingly becoming, is full of rationalization without a single scientific source, but of course how can you explain on a legitimate scientific basis that environment causes large IQ gaps when adult IQ is mostly genetic?

    You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
     
  5. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You're rambling. It's 2017 not 2014. I have read several books including Nisbett's since then. We can't speculate on the cause of measured differences in a phenotypic trait like intelligence without equalizing the environment between groups. That's pure and simple quantitative genetics. What you're doing is nitpicking and shifting the burden of proof to distract from your inability to challenge my central argument. Environmental differences are real and many are measurable or have been studied to establish that they impact intelligence but because there are many environmental variables and because gene x environment interactions are complex we can not know the exact nature of the environment (e.g. Variable X impacts IQ by a certain amount of points). All that needs to be established is that there is no causal relationship between genes and group differences in IQ. That has been done. But predictability you will troll in this manner and refuse to address the argument until you get bored and take another break to post on other message boards.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  6. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't presented a single shred of evidence to support your claim. IN fact you have repeated referred to your disengenous research that led you to change your mind.

    But of course you just can't bring yourself to present it due to your extreme emotional sensitivity and fear of bullying.

    And we are left not discussing your idiotic conclusion of no gassing taking place, but rather flinging insults. and you ain't very good at that either.




    I see, your defense for not producing this voluminous research that from an intellectual standpoint forced you to change your mind about the holocaust narrative is that I'll bash you? Are you and this evidence the same thing?

    You spit out your conviction yet don't have the intellectual integrity to provide your evidence. With no actual factual substantiation of this truly stupid claim how can anyone even remotely take you seriously? Oh right, there's always a few in the crowd, ain't there.




    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. No trying necessary old woman, you make it so easy.


     
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  7. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The real question for me is why this particular brand of pseudoscience keeps popping up in public discourse despite being dismissed by academia. Even after Rushton and Jensen's departure, you still had people like Nicholas Wade coming out to promote the same brand of BS and getting public attention for it despite a lack of serious scientific endorsement. It's like there is an invested audience for racist pseudoscience that persists even after people who knew better rejected it long ago. This topic keeps on going because people keep wanting to believe in it.
     
    Jonsa and Egalitarianjay02 like this.
  8. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    right on.

    same sort that are invested in holocaust denial

    different sort but same psychological investment- some climate deniers.
     
  9. Jabrosky

    Jabrosky Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Honestly (and this might steer the thread off-topic a bit), I think there is an economic dimension to the persistence of racism as an ideology. Think about it, if the effects of past and present discrimination and oppression are an important factor in the racialized economic disparities we see in the US and other Western countries, some sort of action would be needed to correct this unfair inequality. Most likely, this would require a degree of wealth redistribution, since somebody has to pay for any policy that would redress the effects of racism. It's no accident racialism as an ideology is particularly popular with the conservative and right-libertarian crowd, since they're generally not big fans of wealth distribution (at least not as long as the government is involved). They'd rather blame racial inequality on the oppressed groups themselves than pay for equality.
     
  10. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No rambling; I just proved your claim of having dismissed him and not feeling the need for discussion after reading his book in 2014 was a flagrant lie. Clearly you're dropping any veneer of debate at this point and simply lying in every other post..

    I challenged the false argument you made per "discrimination and poverty cause the black/white IQ gap" and in the process exposed your poor source material. You have yet to rebound. As we can see from your failed "promise" to follow up on Nisbett, you're never going to rebound and simply will reboot your argument in another fashion.

    So you admit that there are many variables outside of the "discrimination and poverty" to which you previously repeatedly invoked here, which you claimed were as proven to have caused the black/white IQ gap as the sun rises in the east.

    Perhaps now we're getting somewhere.

    No, what you need to establish to prove that "discrimination and poverty has caused the IQ gap" is proof that they actually have and other environmental factors have all been ruled out. You continue to fail to do it, which is why you're trying to force the subject on another topic you mentioned on this thread but for which I was NOT replying to.

    The last resort of a loser is to construct a straw man of his opponent and beat it to death.

    Sad to see that after years of obsessive "debates" on the topic, this is what you're left with.
     
  11. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Uh huh.

    And of course repeated citations of Dickens and Flynn that you cannot defend:

     
  12. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male

    "Discrimination and poverty are environmental variables that have been proven to affect IQ score." - EgalitarianJay02

    Where do you see "are the only environmental variables and all other environmental variables have been ruled out" (your claim)?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  13. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Congratulations. You have won "weasel post of the month" and a serious contender for weasel of the year.

    You claim you didn't make the claim you repeat in the affirmative while claiming you have no need to prove your claim because my claim is really what your claim is all about in the first place. :psychoitc:

    You then in truly transparent fashion haughtily dismiss the fact that I got your number honey by whinging about the fact that you are the subject of my intense bigotry. Just like jews are subject to yours.

    ANY TIME YOU WANT TO PRODUCE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NO MASS GASSINGS ILL BE HAPPY TO MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A GULLIBLEFOOL. BRING IT ON BABE.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  14. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Trying to trash me for a burden of proof that is yours isn't an argument, as I said. Let me know when you have proof of mass gassings. Good luck trying to wrestle 1,000,000 gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau when numerous of the crematoria facilities were broken down either permanently or for months on end per surviving camp records.

    Cheers on that.

    P.S. Calm down and quit screaming in all caps.
     
  15. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There may actually be something to that although I wouldn't call it "racial" genetics as it has nothing to do with racial background. But racism is a form of pathological bias which has a genetic component.

    People are not born racist. Racism is a cultural problem. Children are taught to be racist and some people decide to become racist later in life. Some people can also change their minds. I had a classmate in elementary school whose Grandfather did. The story ended up on Oprah.

     
  16. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The historical narrative accepted by literally tens of thousands of historians and scientists over decades, sifting thru literally tens of millions of documents, millions of pages of testimony, analysing thousands of sites, seem to have arrived at the consensus that a total of 1.1 million people (980,000 jews) died. Gassing was only one method since disease, starvation, exposure and bullets also sped the unterclasses to their just rewards. The exact number of gassing victims will never be known.

    I do know that the historical narrative does not claim that 1,000,000 jews were gassed there. Are you perhaps confusing the aktion reinhardt camp totals with Auschwitz?

    As to your insistance that the krema couldn't handle that kind of load because of maintanence issues. Now would be a great time for you to back up your claim with, what's it called again? Oh yea evidence of said claim.

    You won't provide any evidence of your claims because you know what a pile of crap the supporting evidence of denialism truly is not to mention the incredible cast of clownish amateurs and charlatans that created it all.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2017
  17. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    One of the great myths is that people who aren't social liberals necessarily never were. In my case, I was as left wing as one could get, I believed all the blame-white-people theories and was totally behind blacks in every way, shape, and form. Then came my awakening from the lies of the political left and finally the dam break on the IQ issue when I began taking college psych classes. Up to that point I assumed everyone's IQs were equal.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but people can't be pigeonholed.
     
  18. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    What follows is an appeal to popularity fallacy which was likely used to "prove" to Galileo that heliocentrism was a lie.


    Oh it's very easy. I'll tell you what. I give you that information when you show us that we can be certain those krema WERE operational the whole time, loaded and brimming with dead people.

    Surviving camp records regarding repairs of those facilities exist. In print. In book form. In English.

    I did the research and found them.

    Didn't you?

    You know where to find them, right?
     
  19. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113

    <Mod Edit- Rule 2/3>

    Mottogno is a quack with no academic credentials at all.

    and here is a very detailed documented rebuttal of his truly amateurish scholarship.

    http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/

    Get back to me when you've figure out a detailed response since it seems you prematurely ended your "research". <Mod Edit- Rule 3/4>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2017
  20. Empress

    Empress Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2014
    Messages:
    3,142
    Likes Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm sorry that isn't camp records pertaining to the functionality of the krematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau during the time period when it's claimed nearly 1,000,000 people were gassed and cremated.

    That's what I thought.
     
  21. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excuse me, it discusses the entire issue of krema availablity as presented by Mottogno. Nice specific denial tho as if it doesn't actually destroy Mottogno's truly specious thesis. OTOH, he does represent the epitome of holocaust academic and intellectual prowess - I estimate between grade 4 and 5 on each aspect)


    I realize that in order to maintain your facade you first create your own strawman and insist there is no evidence to support it.

    Nobody is claiming nearly 1,000,000 million were gassed at Auschwitz. Nobody. 1.1 million inmates died of all causes.

    that might work with you and the rest of the IHR crowd, since logic and intellect seem in short supply in the world of holocaust denial, but like I told you before, i've been at this since the late 70's and I have dealt with literally hundredes of people like you. so far you are functioning true to form. Zero variance, same tricks, and of course the same weaseling when called to put up or shut up with evidence to support the pernicious claims.
     
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  22. RaceRealist

    RaceRealist Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Why don't we talk about the mysterious 'general factor of intelligence'? I'll start.

    General intelligence is proposed to be a physiological variable. However, if it truly were a physiological variable, then 'g' is not like any known physiological variable that we know of. There is a wide range of variation that makes up the 'normal' range of variation for a whole suite of physiologic factors. Further, physiologists do not rank traits on a rank order; that's something that psychologists do. It does not make sense.

    What is 'g'? Mental power? Mental capacity? Processing speed? Energy? Etc etc. These are not scientific terms.

    What is most funny to me though is that we find 'genes for' IQ when there is no theory of individual intelligence differences!!

    Quoting Ian Deary (2001: 14) there "is no such thing as a theory of human intelligence differences – not in the way that grown-up sciences like physics or chemistry have theories." Jensen (1998: 257) writes that there "a number of suggestive neurological correlates of g, but as yet these have not been integrated into a coherent neurophysiological theory of g." So if there is no theory of exactly why individuals differ in 'g/intelligence' (whatever that is), then how are we finding 'genes for' IQ!? That literally does not make sense. Ask 50 people what it is, get 50 answers.

    Finally (for now, I have much more to say on this matter), what do IQ tests test? It seems that IQ is a proxy for social class, and that there is no 'mystical power called g' that differentiates peoples cognitive abilities. Read Ken Richardson on the matter.

    Sources:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/06/do-physiologists-study-general-intelligence/

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.9895&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    'g' (whatever that is) is not physiological, and if it truly were (and if it existed) and if physiologists did study it, they would not rank individuals on a linear scale; does it not seem absurd to you that a so-called physiological variable gets rank ordered? It literally does not make sense.
     
  23. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you can dismiss some elements of "g" being physiological. I believe there has to be a physiological "environment" that houses this elusive "g". A physiological foundation for the psychological development of "g", if you will.

    I don't believe intelligence in all any its variations has a single attributable source.
     
  24. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    What psychologists call g is actually a numerical and statistical construct rather than a physical attribute or property of the brain. The idea of general intelligence has not been shown to exist experimentally. What we call intelligence is a complex behaviorally trait that is influenced by environmental and developmental factors in addition to genetic influence. You have a genetic potential for intelligence. Your environment helps you maximize that potential and environment can limit your intellectual development as well as create tradeoffs in mental ability (e.g. you can be good at some mental tasks and bad at others).

     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2017
  25. RaceRealist

    RaceRealist Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    There is actually a theory in neuroscience of multiple intelligence.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949317300030

    I ignored it before, but now I'm intrigued.

    And yea, 'g' doesn't exist. With how it's construed, it wouldn't be like any other physiologic process in the body. Here's a quote from Ken Richardson's book on why physiologists wouldn't suggest what psychologists do in regards to 'g' if they studied it (physiologists don't study general intelligence because they're concerned with real and reliably measured biological processes in the body).

    Which physiologic variable is 'g' like? Body fat? Heart rate? Blood pressure? If it were like any of those variables, then it wouldn't have 'ranked order'. There is also no theory of individual intelligence differences. So how are we finding 'genes for' IQ?

    Richardson (2017: 166-167) writes:

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

    (a) that within the normal range of physiological differences, a higher level is better than any others (as is supposed in the construction of IQ tests);

    (b) that there is a general index or “quotient” (a la IQ) that could meaningfully describe levels of physiological sufficiency or ability and individual differences in it;

    (c) that “normal” variation is associated with genetic variation (except in rare deleterious conditions; and

    (d) the genetic causation of such variation can be meaningfully separated from the environmental causes of the variation.



    A preoccupation with ranking variations, assuming normal distributions, and estimating their heritabilities simply does not figure in the field of physiology in the way that it does in the field of human intelligence. This is in stark contrast with the intensity of the nature-nurture debate in the human cognitive domain. But perhaps ideology has not infiltrated the subject of physiology as much as it has that of human intelligence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page