A Reality Check on Race and IQ

This is why I didn't bother to make the thread. You always do this. When I say that I am going to debate you you disappear or say that I can't possibly defend Nisbett's research because I am not an expert and he should be defending his own work. You don't allow your opponent the chance to debate you. Claiming victory when you refuse to show up on the battlefield is very easy. Actually engaging in a proper debate is challenging and you have proven time and again that you don't have the ability to do that. How many posts did you contribute to the thread about Myer's book? Only one. That's a hit-and-run. If you shut me down with that one post you win but you didn't. This has always been your strategy, make an argument and flee when you are asked to defend it. Rushton only responded to some of his critics. He picked and chose who to respond to. Joseph Graves not only debated Rushton on video (whose arguments you can't reply to despite claiming to have studied biology in college) he wrote two articles in print and addressed Rushton's argument in both of his books. Rushton never gave a scholarly response. One of my opponents got him to make one email response which Graves replied to and that is all we got from him before he died. He also had about 15 years (1997-2012) to respond with a proper rebuttal to Graves and never did.

The difference between Graves vs. Rushton and Nisbett vs. Lee is that I am not aware of Nisbett having any familiarity with Lee or being challenged by Lee to defend his views in an actual debate. If scholars responded to every critic they wouldn't have time to do research. Nisbett co-authored an article in 2012 with leading experts in the field showing that his work has currency. In any case this is a discussion forum so I can defend the research of any scholar that I choose to. You are employing a dishonest debate tactic here by twisting what I said about the credibility of sources in to saying that you can not use a source if they have not defended their work from every critic. What I said is that if a source does not have credible evidence supporting their claims then it is trash. There is a lot of garbage on the internet. If the source is an expert in their field then they are credible. From there we can analyze their claims to see if they are valid.

I wanted an agreement from you that you would debate but I don't need it. I will just make the thread just to shut you up. Then we will see what you do. You can do another disappearing act, do a hit-and-run, make excuses not do debate or try to debate and get beaten, I don't care. Once I am finished I will PM you and we won't have this kind of encounter again with you making the same tired old arguments over and over.

 

No, you said you'd make the thread. I was tempted to make it for you. You said you'd make the thread and address the review. At StumbleInn in Sept of 2015 you said you would read Nisbett's book and respond to Lee's criticisms on a thread started on THIS forum, not some other science forum somewhere for which you just whipped up out of the blue and "dare" me to go to like a 10 year old.

I've made a number of posts about Meyer's book and other books as well, but long ago while on a flagging spree, you had them removed out of spite.

Lee wrote a critical review of Nisbett, and Nisbett has failed to rebut Lee and defend his work. This isn't about "debates." Nisbett failed to respond to a critical scholarly paper pointing out the numerous deep flaws of his argumentation. As I have said nearly countless times by now, why do you continue to cite Nisbett when you can't defend his work from critics? Is this perhaps where you pull another, "This thread isn't about Nisbett" escape to avoid the subject while you freely demand those who question you to defend their source selections?

You either have serious memory problems or you're blatantly lying about Nisbett's email to you regarding your inquiry about Lee. Need I remind you here that Nisbett's only response to you about Lee was snarky comments about Lee followed by Nisbett's vague deflection to the others that wrote the book with him? Are you this desperate now?

From your older posts on this forum:

May 27, 2014. May 23, 2014.

Yes, Nisbett knows. You asked him. He responded. He gave you nothing. And that's pretty bad for you considering how many of your assertions about IQ equality lean on his work.

Good luck.

 

I've put off making the thread because you keep disappearing. Now I'm going to make it just to shut you up. I am going to review both Lee and Rushton's papers in the same thread. I will PM you once I have posted it and whether you are here or not the thread will be there so I can direct you to the thread every time you decide to do one of your hit-and-run attacks. As far as flagging your posts are concerned I have only flagged posts of yours that were in clear violation of the rules (e.g. trolling, flaming, character assassination, ranting off-topic etc.). I have never serially flagged your posts to stifle debate which is a lie and even if I did do that I'm not a moderator here. The moderators decide what gets deleted. I can only at best bring it to their attention. So if your posts got deleted it is because you actually violated the rules according to the mods and that is your fault.

Challenging you to a debate on a science message board is not childish. You claim to have an educational background that includes biology. Biology is an important part of the Race & IQ debate so why not debate me on a science message board? You won't do it because you know you will be held to a higher standard and will get destroyed by posters who are scientifically literate. But that's ok. We can debate here. My prediction is that when I make the thread you will not show up. You just don't have it in you to debate me on that level. Once I've made the thread there will be nothing left to say but until then talk as much trash as you want. Just don't break the rules and blame it on me when your posts get deleted.

 

LOL....

You specifically flag posts when you're angry and being beaten. You go on off-topic personal attacks all the time like you've been doing the past few days.

Debate me on what? I've never claimed to defend Rushton and I know little of his work. All I've ever done is call you out of your poor debate tactics, your poor source quality, and fallacious claims. No more, no less.

OH I'll get destroyed by posters who are scientifically literate? In other words, you're scientifically illiterate and can't handle me without significant backup. Well, I already know that. That's not debating YOU, that's debating you and a bunch of guys you want to help you. That's funny, actually. You're trying set me up for a gang attack because I keep beating your ass. Hahahaha

All I've ever asked regarding Nisbett is that you stop using him as a source and claim he's solid when you know that critics have trashed his conclusions. You'll do that temporarily while I'm around looking and once I'm gone awhile, you whip him out at some unsuspecting opponent.

Seriously, stop lying and pretending Nisbett doesn't know who Lee is. Internet searches from your own posts exposed you. That was too easy.

Simply get your academic (*)(*)(*)(*) together, and you won't need to hide behind emails and other posters.

 

IQ is random.

Example of this is Srinivasa Ramanujan a poor Indian boy with no formal skills in academics. Self taught to become recognised by an English Professor in Cambridge University, G.H Hardy.

Two men on different sides of the world coming together to question advanced mathematical problems.

Why did Ramanujan and Hardy have the same genius at the same time and no one else didn't? Who knows. And why does that still happen. A tiny minority of people have high IQ's dotted around the globe and the rest of us can only look in awe at their genius.

 

You've always had a problem with honesty and reading comprehension. Only in your delusional mind have I ever avoided using Nisbett as a source in your presence. That has never happened. Show in my post history where I have said anything like "OK, I'll stop using Nisbett..." and then used him when you are not around. That never happened. Just because you disappear from the board from time to time doesn't mean that I am afraid to use sources around you. So stop lying. I don't have a track record for ducking debates. I have debated you on Youtube. I debated other racists on The Phora where I was severely outnumbered. I even debated you on your turf until you banned me and edited my posts for retaliating against you for your personal attacks. And I have debated you here where you continually disappear preferring you own obscure message board where you can bully other posters around and on here falsely accuse me of serially flagging your posts. You won't debate on a science message board because you won't debate outside of your comfort zone. I would debate you there so how am I not one of the scientifically literate posters you'd be debating? If you are afraid of being outnumbered (which if your views had any respect in the scientific community you wouldn't be) you can invite as many debate partners as you want. I'm serious. As many as you want. But you won't do it because you don't have the courage.

As for Rushton I know you are unfamiliar with his work because you have never made a serious defense of it despite repeatedly talking about him. Anyone can check your post history to see that you have repeatedly commented on Rushton but only in the context of saying that he responded to his critics and that I shouldn't be using a zoologist (Suzuki) and biologist (Graves) to refute him on the subject of psychology. This shows your ignorance because Rushton's research is multidisciplinary and Suzuki and Graves addressed his conclusions from the perspective of geneticists and biologists because they have implications for those fields. I made those points clear to you in this post which was almost 3 years ago and you have not improved in your understanding of this debate.

In the thread about Myer's book you said my contention that White people made Black people have lower average IQs was a weird theory. This is a bizarre statement as even strong racial hereditarians like Rushton and Jensen accept a partial environmental explanation for racial IQ gaps (in one of their last papers they said that between group heritability was 0.80 so 80% genetic and 20% environmental). Are you actually advancing the idea that racial IQ gaps are 100% genetic in cause? If so, then provide a source which supports your position. I don't know of anyone who claims this. Honestly after all this time I'm not even sure of your actual position on Race & IQ and the evidence supporting it. All you have done is attack my sources and try to intimidate me in to not using them (that's never going to happen) but I don't recall you stating an official position and providing a source that agrees. You have tried to play up the White victim angle by saying that blaming Whites for Blacks having low IQs is racist and actually mocked the struggles of Black Americans fighting for equality by asking how Blacks not being allowed to use the same toilet as Whites lowered their IQs which I addressed in this post.

So why don't you clarify your position on Race & IQ? That is definitely on topic. Failure to respond will be taken as a concession that you can't make an argument. I'm already going to make the Nisbett thread as I feel it is time to shut you up on this once and for all. But if you want to discuss your position on IQ this is the time to do it and this is the appropriate thread to do it in.

 

You previously did lay off using Nisbett with me because you found yourself unable to defend his conclusions. Sad you tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here and pretend Nisbett didn't respond to Lee because he never heard of Lee when your own posts betrayed otherwise, but this isn't about honesty it's about you trying to get one up over a "racist" who doesn't go along with your misuse of science.

Why would I "defend" Rushton's work when I never read much of it? To claim I never offered a "defense" is an outright lie, for I'd have to claimed to support it first. Since I am not a Rushton acolyte, what is there to "debate" on that other forum? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're accusing me of being too afraid to debate a subject about a guy whose books I've never read. Yeah, you said that. Repeatedly. LOL.

Why? Because you can't defend Nisbett and are trying to change the subject.

My position has been one: You make arguments that are false and use tactics that are dishonest. All I've EVER done is point that out, and it's driving you absolutely nuts.

Apparently I have to correct you on Suzuki and Graves again: 1) You cited Suzuki - a ZOOLOGIST - as a "source" to "defeat Rushton" by posting a video of him ranting about how someone needs to defeat Rushton but he can't do it because it's not his expertise, and 2) You cited Graves on the heritability of IQ issue when that's not his field which is why I had to correct his mistaken comment.

Yet again, you misuse sources left and right and invoke double standards. Remember: You called Rushton a fraud repeatedly for making comments outside his field of expertise. Not only have you not disqualified Graves and Suzuki on the same point alone, but you continue to quote them as reliable sources.

You're here to play games. You can't defend Nisbett, so you go all over the place making (*)(*)(*)(*) up and looking for stones to throw at me.

 

When? Point out where I did this. You are lying.

I said that Nisbett was not familiar with Lee. When I emailed him about Lee he said he was not familiar with him and never finished the paper. These are his exact words:

So we see here that Nisbett doesn't seem familiar with this research and never looked at it seriously, at least until I brought it up. Lee to my knowledge never challenged Nisbett to a debate or wrote him to make him aware of his review. Graves went to great lengths to refute Rushton. That is the difference that I pointed out.

If you don't want to debate Rushton than why not the topic of Race & IQ in general? If you do not support Rushton then why do you keep bringing him up? Why did you bring him up in this current exchange?

I know you are ignorant of his work. You have shown that. Yet you have repeatedly talked about him in order to criticize me. Why?

I haven't changed the subject and I can defend Nisbett. You don't need to make a troll thread. The thread will be made and made soon then you will have a choice to debate or flee. Let's see what happens....

You haven't pointed out any false arguments or dishonest tactics by me.

This is a good example of your dishonest debate tactics:

1) Suzuki is a zoologist and geneticist. You dishonestly label him as just a zoologist to suggest that he has no authority to debate Rushton. You falsely accused him of saying he can't defeat Rushton when he did just that. What Suzuki actually said in their debate is that he wanted Rushton reprimanded by his school for peddling pseudoscience and that he called on other academics within that school in relevant fields to debate him. He didn't want to debate because he didn't feel Rushton's theories should be dignified in debate. He didn't want to give them undue attention. But he did debate! He debated him. He refuted him by addressing his core arguments. I transcribed relevant passages from the debate which you have ignored.

2) Graves did not make a mistaken comment on the heritability of IQ. He said that the heritability of IQ was about 0.50 (50% genetic and 50% environmental). The key word there is about. You nitpicked at this comment by pointing out that there are sources that claim the heritability of IQ is higher than 0.50. Some claim it is 0.80 and some claim even higher. Not only is that irrelevant and not in conflict with what Graves said (he accepts that IQ is highly heritable) that is not his main point. His point is that the environmental component to IQ is large enough to be the sole cause of group differences in IQ considering the many environmental and developmental factors that affect the nurturing of intelligence.

Those points are outlined in these comments by Graves:

What you are incapable of doing is addressing Graves' actual argument against the racial hereditarian position so you attack a strawman and use dishonest debate tactics to try to discredit him as a source. That is not going to work.

I haven't simply said that Rushton debated outside of his expertise (Suzuki and Graves have not) but he used bad sources which he tried to support with a discredited theory. He was a dishonest researcher who was even reprimanded by his own school for unethical research practices (which were not only unscientific but perverted) and his work was refuted by many scholars, most notably Graves but also several others. I explained all of this in this thread. Despite your numerous contributions to the thread, which was just the same old song and dance you're doing here, you provided no rebuttal to my arguments.

I'm playing games? No. You are the one who responds to me out of the blue with the same tired old arguments employing the exact same dishonest debate tactics. You created a troll thread to sabotage my debate when I clearly told you I was going to make a thread about Nisbett. You have made false accusations against me and you dodged giving a proper response to my questions about your position on the Race & IQ discussion. You should be banned for trolling. Maybe that is why you take extended breaks from posting here because you know that you can't post for an extended time without breaking the rules. These hit-and-run tactics are going to end. I am going to shut you down. My thread will be made and then we will see what level of debate you can offer if any.

 

No, I just don't know what forum you said it on or if the relevant posts are still there. As much as you demand others defend their sources, your own ability to do so is very lacking thus we keep ending up here.

It doesn't matter if one is familiar with Lee or not. His review was published in 2009 and in spite of Nisbett claiming his books "survived" critique, Nisbett never backed that up with a defense of the facts as he presented them in the book which have been heavily criticized. So in short, Nisbett left you high and dry. That should have set off some alarm bells there, dude.

Also, if Nisbett's work was that solid, it should be accepted as the gold standard in the field and it isn't. He's but a crowd of scholars mentioned in books on the subject, along with Rushton.

It doesn't matter what Lee did or didn't challenge Nisbett to do. Scholars routinely respond to critical articles of their works. Something like this where the cornerstone of Nisbett's work is put up to doubt, and Nisbett doesn't step up to plate to defend it. That looks BAD.

Debate what? I've pointed out shortcomings in your source materials and tactics.

Ooh a fishing expedition on the way to Conspiracy Theoryville. I'm simply talking about your misuse of facts, misrepresentations of the consensus, and dishonest tactics you use against unsuspecting people to prove something that isn't scientifically valid.

You have and you can't. It's been 3 years and you still can't. I didn't "troll." I made the thread for you since you keep ducking out. Trust me, I knew you'd flag it the second you saw it. I laughed.

I have repeatedly for 3 years on this forum and others including YouTube. I'm just not going to keep reposting the same crap every single time I run into you.

And here, right after you demand I prove that you use dishonest debate tactics, you use dishonest debate tactics. You have repeatedly stated that Rushton going outside of his field of expertise is indicative of his being a fraudulent scholar.

What is Suzuki's background?

He is a "science broadcaster and environmental activist with a PhD in zoology."

According to YOUR rules which you laid down for Rushton, this man shouldn't even be mentioned in discussions about topics of psychology, yet here you are.

In your own YouTube video of the Suzuki/Rushton debate, in Suzuki's opening remarks, he said, "Rushton's right. I'm not a psychologist, I don't read that stuff."

THAT is a valid source to you who "defeated" Rushton.

See how easy it was to prove your use of dishonest tactics?

But he shouldn't be broaching the subject since he's not a psychologist and has no background in the field in which heritability of traits are determined, which is identical twin longevity studies.

So again, you broke your own standards by invoking Graves.

See how easy it was to prove your use of dishonest tactics?

"Some claim" adult heritability is .80? No, multiple studies show that. So many that there is now coined something called the Wilson Effect for which none of your sources admit exists let alone addresses. Sad really, since I learned about it in the very first psychology course I ever took.

One of your dishonest tactics is to smear as "racist" and "white supremacist" anyone that disagrees with your conclusions, when Nisbett's own letter to you said that's not typically the case. Sadly, when you should take a lesson from Nisbett, you ignore him.

He fails your own standard since you debunked him already. Perhaps next you'll go around telling people that this guy you found with a degree in massage therapy that they are a fine source for information in the field of trait heritability because you like what they wrote.

As I said, I'm not familiar with Rushton's "racial hereditarian position," so again you claim I have a shortcoming in something I never gave a (*)(*)(*)(*) to read that much about. Or in other words, you are inventing - whole cloth - deficiencies which I do not possess. lol... All I have done is state what I have learned in mainstream psychology texts and from professors regarding the high heritability of adult IQ.

The instant Suzuki got on a stage with Rushton he did just that, by your standards AND by his admission. A ranting zoologist trying to have Rushton censored on ideological grounds has no means of defeating Rushton on the field of psychology, and neither does Graves. They simply do not have the required academic background.

And when it comes to psychology, your main weapon is the debunked Nisbett, thus the fatal flaw in your entire argument.

You are playing games as you just illustrated by invoking people as sources who lack expertise in the area you're trying to address. Citing a zoologist and saying he "debunked" a PhD in psychology on matters of psychology by having an ideological fit on a stage is too laughable to take seriously. You were being dishonest, and everyone reading this knows it.

I have no hit and run tactics. This isn't the only forum I visit for a bit and disappear from. My main forum is StumbleInn and from there I visit intermittently to other places. This forum tends to be a one trick pony with whining leftists of differing varieties with thick skulls whining about things they've almost always little clue about beyond party line talking points, so I don't tend to find much interesting here for a frequent presence.

"Shut me down" for what? Not visiting a forum regularly that I find boring half of the time? Bleh. Your crap from October was in my in-box when I got back here, so I responded to it. That's it.

Did you even read the entire Nisbett book yet that you said you bought? You went quiet nearly 3 years ago without a peep, but at least it isn't 8 years quiet without a peep like Nisbett has been.

You CAN'T defend his work because 1) You would violate your own standards by trying because psychology is outside your personal field of expertise, thus you're incapable of making a surrogate argument for a clueless PhD in psychology who you've emotionally invested in, and 2) Nisbett's inability to defend his own books means those books are made on shaky conclusions. You don't sit back and refuse to defend a mass market publication, especially, from critics unless you're a fraud. He has his profits and his publisher to consider. His lack of follow-up makes him look like crap.

This is a cop out: "Thanks for putting me onto this. I think I looked at this shortly after it came out and then didn't get back to it. I will look it over more carefully soon. "

He never looked into it. He never got back to you. He never wrote a rebuttal.

The end.

 

So basically you can't back up your claim with evidence. Typical....

That means nothing. Scholars don't respond to every critique. That comes with the territory of publishing a work that many critics have given an opinion on.

Nisbett's book "Intelligence and how to get it" has 404 citations on Google Scholar. The book has a 4 out of 5 rating on Amazon.com with 31 customer reviews. Of the reviews 48% gave it a 5 star rating. Only 10% gave it a 1 star rating (none of those reviews were from authors with verified purchases). A search for "Intelligence and How to get it book review" generates 49,000,000 results. There are many reviews on various websites and in various journals. Nisbett should not be expected to have the time or energy to respond to them all.

You have constructed an unrealistic burden on a scholar in order to discredit him despite his reputation and have the audacity to try to claim that this is my tactic. This is not what I have done. I showed that Rushton's research was not credible with specific arguments and evidence as well as showed how tarnished his reputation was in the academic community. You have not done this and can't do this to Nisbett. You hang your hat on this single review by James Lee. You won't be able to do that much longer.

They aren't mentioned on equal grounds and are not equal in reputation.

Only in your mind does not responding to one review look bad. As Nisbett said in the email his recent article that covers a lot of the research in his book and was co-authored with top scholars in the field received many positive reviews. What matters is the scholarly consensus. Nisbett's research is clearly respected in the academic community.

You just rant about the same points over and over which I have refuted. Your criticisms of my source materials (Suzuki and Graves) are ridiculous and I have pointed that out many times.

Be specific. What have I tried to prove that isn't scientifically valid?

I laughed at your pathetic attempt to sabotage my thread. When my thread gets made you won't be the one laughing.

You haven't done this. When challenged to point out specific arguments and dishonest tactics you fail.

This is just an overly simplistic misinterpretation by you. I have said that Rushton is not qualified to speak on genetics, evolution or biology and when he was challenged by actual experts he ducks a proper response (ex. his debates with Suzuki and Graves).

You are now repeating the exact same dishonest debate tactics that I have pointed out!

What did I say in that quote? I said that Suzuki was a zoologist and a geneticist. I said that you dishonestly only mention that he is a zoologist to discredit him when he entered the debate as a geneticist on a topic that is relevant to his field of expertise. And what did you say in response? You used the exact same dishonest debate tactic again!

David Suzuki earned a B.A. in Biology in 1958 from Amherst College where he studied genetics (genetics is considered a field of biology). He was a professor in the genetics department at the University of British Columbia for 38 years (1963-2001). Why don't you have the intellectual honesty to admit that Suzuki has the qualifications as a geneticist to speak on race and intelligence which is a topic that can be addressed by multiple disciplines including psychology, biology and genetics? You are being incredibly dishonest and you are only discrediting yourself.

You are also deliberately taking Suzuki's comment about psychology out of context. He said that to raise the point about psychologists having a bad reputation for promoting pseudoscience.

This is what Suzuki said about psychology and Rushton's research:

Suzuki: The public is profoundly affected by the ramification of these ideas. So the academic community has a great role to play to ensure that all ideas, but especially those with enormous social ramifications can withstand critical scrutiny. Rushton's do not in a fundamental way. And we must ask then where are those scholars on this campus to say so? Where are those hotshot molecular geneticists, whose work he is citing, who gladly go for grants on biotechnology but don't get up when it comes to an important social issue? Where are the psychologists? Where are the psychologists to get up here? I'm not a psychologist. Rushton's right, I'm not a psychologist. I don't read that stuff. I can understand after hearing this why psychology has a bad rep with the rest of science. But in refusing to condemn this work on academic grounds. In allowing him to continue his work and spread his ideas and providing research funding, in allowing his articles to be published scientists and scholars legitimate his work and must be condemned for a serious dereliction of responsibility. You see there will always be Rushtons in the world and we must always be prepared to root them out and not hide behind academic freedom.

So taken in proper context Suzuki is saying that Rushton is giving psychology a bad reputation and calling on academics from relevant disciplines such as psychology and genetics to refute him.

You have twisted this to say that Suzuki is not qualified to speak on this topic. He is as a geneticist. He made scientific arguments against Rushton's work and he made ethical arguments about the reason why he shouldn't be dignified in debate, the reason why he shouldn't get funding from his school and the reason why he should not be able to hide behind academic freedom when his research falls below acceptable standards of legitimate academic research in to the realm of pseudoscience. Suzuki's main point is that Rushton's research is not science and shouldn't be treated as such.

You're showing your ignorance here. Heritability is a concept used in quantitative genetics, including selective breeding and behavior-genetics to assess the statistical relationship between hereditary factors such as genes and environment and how they impact phenotypic traits. Quantitative genetics is part of the field of study that Graves specializes in (evolutionary genetics). Graves has done laboratory experiments that show the relationship between genes, environment and phenotypic traits. So heritability is part of his field of study, he is qualified to talk about it and he has cited scientific literature supporting his arguments.

You're moving the goal posts. Graves was talking about the heritability of IQ in general not adult heritability. I know that the heritability of IQ increases in adulthood and stabilizes. Graves said that the heritability of IQ was around 0.50 not that it was fixed. This is an estimate and this is irrelevant to the point he was making about race and intelligence. Graves point is that given the importance of environment in affecting the nurturing of intelligence populations such as Black and White Americans need to be raised in the same environment to determine whether genetic differences between the groups have anything to do with their IQ scores. This is a basic principle of experimental quantitative genetics. In order to infer genetic causality for phenotypic traits exhibited by different genotypes those genotypes must be reared in the same environment. The high heritability of IQ, which you keep pointing out is not relevant to this point.

I have said in the past that believing that there are racial differences in intelligence does not in itself make you a racist. However many people believe this because they want to believe it and most of them are racists. You yourself are a racist. You have been exposed as one by your racist comments here and on Stumbleinn where you called me the N-word, banned me in a fit of rage and edited my posts to fill them with racist imagery. So if someone tells me they are not a racist I give them the opportunity to prove they aren't. But once they have been exposed of course I am not going to back off of the charge.

If you don't know what the racial hereditarian position is then you need to stop pretending you know anything about this subject and do some research. The racial hereditarian position is not unique to Rushton. The position is that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. You have expressed this belief. You have called the claim that White people lowered Black IQs a weird theory. This suggests that you believe that genes are 100% the cause of racial differences in IQ. Not even Rushton or Jensen went that far. So if that is what you believe what sources support your position? Invoking the high heritability of IQ to this discussion is of no relevance. Read Graves quote from his book that I posted. He accepts that IQ is highly heritable but maintains that even if it is that doesn't mean that group differences in IQ have a genetic component for the reasons he outlined (e.g. evolutionary science and genetic research does not support this position).

So answer this question: Which of these positions do you support?

1. Genetic Determinism - Racial differences in IQ are 100% caused by genes.

2. Environmental Determinism - Racial differences in IQ are 100% caused by environment.

3. Hereditarianism - Racial differences in IQ are partially caused by genetic differences and partially caused by environmental differences.

If you don't answer this time I really am going to flag you for trolling. This question is central to the topic of the thread.

I've already exposed this as a lie so you are going to need to come up with a better argument.

One critical review doesn't constitute a debunking. When I review Lee's article we will see what you have to say in response....

I shortened your rant because we don't need to go over the same points again. This is a discussion forum so I can review anyone's work I please, not as an expert but as someone giving an opinion. I will back up my arguments with sources.

 

I just did from your previous post. LOL.

Yeah right. You've never given Rushton the slide for this. Just admit it.

I'm sorry but appealing to public popularity isn't evidence of the validity of Nisbett's work.

To contrast, Taken by the T-Rex (Dinosaur Erotica) on Amazon has some very raving reviews, including a five-star one which reads,

"It is very uncommon to find accurate depictions of dinosaur on woman sex. If, like me, you have found it increasingly difficult to satisfy your need to recount old times, then this literary masterpiece is for you. No other author has truly been able to both arouse and entice my intense desire to mate with a T-Rex as accurately and successfully as Christie Sims. I would not be surprised if this book outsells the Bible and brings about a new age of literary enlightenment."

I never hanged my hat on one of anything. You have. You're accusing me of hanging my hat on Lee because you hang your hat on Nisbett and are trying to throw it back into my face because you keep getting called out for it.

Legitimate scholars confident in their work don't shy away from critics. You understand that if Rushton is the subject and ou have never accused his critics of placing an "unrealistic burden" on him for dodging a single negative review.

I've seen them both cited in textbooks of psychology on the intelligence topic, including the Myers text I previously mentioned and showed you since you supposedly found the book online. "Reputation" has little validity when it often hinges on political acceptability rather than content of work. Again, that's an appeal to popularity and does not substantiate Nisbett's arguments. They're both cited in the Myers work as two differing views on the topic.

As I keep saying, the core concepts of Rushton's work in psychology such as high heritability of adult IQ come from not from Rushton's racist musings but from mainstream research.

And none of them could muster a response. That makes it even worse. "Respected in the academic community"? He has a few critics you keep ignoring.

If you refuted my points - which necessarily mean defending Nisbett & Co. from Lee's detailed criticism - this conversation wouldn't still be taking place.

In your Suzuki/Rushton video, Suzuki actually contradicted himself. He said the differences between the races are less than the differences between two people in the same group. (In that, he cited Lewontin's Fallacy.)Then he said that future genetics studies would undoubtedly reveal more differences between the races, so in a way he's indirectly saying to take him with a grain of salt due to the limitations of the genetics of the day even while he misrepresents genetics of the day as definitive in debunking Rushton. And with that, you seem to be trying to say if the genetics studies of the day don't agree with psychology studies, therefore psychology studies are invalid, even if there are hundreds of them internationally over 50+ years. That doesn't make sense.

How do we know genetics has yet to catch up with longevity studies? In this case, it certainly indicates it was the case in the 1990s.

IQ equality, Einstein, specifically that your thesis rides solely on the correlation/causation fallacy of racism causing the IQ gap. That's the other gaping hole in your argument.

I didn't sabotage anything. You've been ducking for 3 years so I did it myself.

Another thing: Don't just present your "defense" of Nisbett to me. Present it to Lee.

I just did in that very post and those above it.

No, his CV doesn't mention much of a genetics background. BA in biology and PhD in zoology. Finding his genetics qualifications is actually rather difficult.

Being a professor in a department doesn't necessarily qualify one as a geneticist. Genetics is a specialist field within the greater field of biology. I don't see where he took an academic path of that.

Yes, false science SHOULD be rooted out, including that which avoids addressing certain things due to prevailing social taboos such as the equality myth. This knife cuts both ways.

Suzuki's arguments were mostly emotional and the one work he cited is a basic genetics text from the 1970s coupled with Lewontin's Fallacy. I wouldn't exactly call that a home run, especially in light of his admitting at the time (early 90s) that geneticists were undoubtedly going to discover genetic differences between population groups.

But again, none of that has much bearing on basic discoveries by longevity studies: Adult IQ is highly heritable, intelligence runs in families, some behavioral traits are inherited more or less than others. There are countless past longevity studies that have shown this as well as current ones. Those are basics you learn in psychology classes which were not invented by Rushton.

You can prattle on here but Graves misquoted the findings of psychological research on the topic which is what I was referring to. He totally ignored the high adult heritability of IQ. No moving the goal posts by me. He said ".50" which is a half-truth and doesn't remain stagnant throughout life as per the Wilson Effect. I've come across some studies that show adult heritability of slightly over 0.90. I only know of this bad quote by Graves because you used it somewhere on this forum or elsewhere as evidence of the high environmental impact on IQ.

Cool, prove it.

People are not obligated to prove to Your Highness that they aren't racist. The onus is on you to prove they are if you're going to throw that slur around, and again you define it as someone who disagrees with your conclusions on your views on IQ. Declaring IQ equality to someone as a fact when you can't back it up - since your source quality and conclusions are critically flawed - means you have no business smearing people as racist for not going along with you.

I'm not the one that keeps bringing it up. You are. You keep assuming I'm a Rushton acolyte while banging your chest and I demand I "defend" something I can't be arsed to read.

I've stated what I've learned in psych courses and independent reading and how they expose various flaws in your arguments. Feel free to go through my (remaining) post history for that.

I've said that intelligence runs in families which is the truth. It obviously has wider consequences than that. You claim that environment explains IQ differences but that claim is almost wholly based on Nisbett's indefensible work coupled with your correlation/causation fallacy of "racism exists therefore it made IQ unequal." You have shown ZERO science to that end. Indeed, how is such a thing measured and translated to reliable scientific results? Who has been able to do this?

I don't have a "position." I have stated what I learned in college. No more, no less. You're trying to draw it into an ideological pissing match.

You're hostile and resentful and it's an excuse. You don't go around making demands of others, telling them to prove themselves innocent of your charges of racism or insisting they bow to you and go along with a discussion on your terms because you can't defend your sources. This is all deflection on your part, but you don't see me crying and flagging over it.

Worse than this, you continue to posit that "racism" is the cause for the IQ gap when your entire argument revolves around unscientific correlation-equals-causation fallacy which when questioned you respond with increasing levels of hostility and a threatened renewed flagging campaign.

It's not trolling to call you out on poor source materials you use on a thread that you cannot defend but use anyway.

Unless it's Rushton.

Your opinions are self-serving and lack adequate scientific validity because you use flawed sources that are so critically flawed, your entire discourse comes to a screeching halt the minute someone points it out. Repeating tenuous claims and appealing to glowing reviews isn't a scientific defense.

Funny how you persist on that you're going to be a surrogate for a PhD and defend his work when HE can't even do it. You don't even seem to notice - or care - the double standard here. You claimed Rushton a fraud for this very thing... Shame on you.

 

OK so you admit that you don't even have a position on this discussion. Then you are basically trolling. I'm not going to respond to any of this garbage. I have stated my position on the subject of race and intelligence many times and defended my position with sources. I will respond to your accusation that I have not proven that anyone I charge with racism is racist. I have proven that YOU are a racist. Your racist language is well-documented across multiple websites.

Note: I have respected the moderators' desires not to circumvent the swear filter by editing out the N-word in these posts.

Exhibit A: Empress on Stumbleinn

Exhibit B: Empress on The Phora

Exhibit C: Empress on Youtube

You are a racist. You hate Black people. You pretend to have knowledge relevant to this topic based on your college education but can't even advance a position on this subject.

By the way, I have debunked the claim below in this thread:

Care to take a crack at that?

 

troll2
trōl/
verb
gerund or present participle: trolling
1.
informal
make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.


Pointing out your failure to defend your argument isn't trolling. Pointing out you debate dishonestly and invoke different standards for your opponents isn't trolling. You think you can get away with discussing the subject in bad faith using deceptive methods which I mentioned above, cobbled together by using Nisbett's shaky conclusions to put together a thesis that rests on the fallacious claim that IQ inequality is caused by "racism" when no scientific evidence has shown this. I directly stated that is part of your core argument you have continually for several years failed to defend, and you blew it off in favor of losing your marbles, changing the subject, and frantically searching old posts to "prove" I am racist because apparently you're under the unsurprisingly false impression that posting off-topic statements you find offensive proves the person's argument is false. That's just yet another of your rampant logical fallacies you have attempted to wield as a weapon because of your heavy emotional investment in this unscientific myth of yours.

What you just did was completely change the subject into a personal pissing match and race baiting session. Again.

Since you completely bowed out of answering my question (which I've asked before) regarding what proof exists that proves "racism caused the IQ gap," obviously you cannot defend that statement. Since you have completely bowed out of posting a defense for Nisbett since the spring of 2014, you obviously cannot defend his conclusions. And clearly you have no intention of running any "answer" to Lee's criticisms past Lee himself.

Trust me, I knew.

 

What argument? You admitted that you don't even have a position. What is your argument? I have provided plenty of scientific evidence that racial differences in IQ are entirely caused by environmental differences in which racism is a key variable. Your denial of this evidence does not refute the argument. I have provided evidence on this forum for years but if you want to check some of my sources you can try this thread, this post and this post.

I didn't change the subject. You are the one who asked for proof that my accusations of racism against posters was valid. I proved that you are racist. Do you dispute the charge? After I create the thread if you want to contact Lee and make him aware of it or invite him to the thread be my guest. I don't have a problem with that. I have invited scholars myself. But you are the one who challenged me to address this research. You are the one who endorsed this article. If you want Lee to be aware of my review or to participate in the thread or help you with counter arguments then do that. That's your business.

 

Arguing in circles because you are unable to defend your premises. Citing Graves doesn't prove the IQ gap is environmental let alone "caused by racism." Citing a brain volume spat doesn't prove "racism causes IQ inequality." Again what you've done is taken what you think is evidence that disproves genetic relation to differences and have ASSUMED it was then caused by racism. That's fallacious.

I specifically asked you: How is it determined that "racism" causes IQ differences? How is it measured? How was it discovered? How was it verified? No answers, rather than crying behind accusations of racism and posting things that don't prove "racism" caused anything.

I'm not asking for you to fill in the blanks. I asked for scientific proof that "racism" caused the IQ gap.

Are you going to post your defense of Nisbett to Lee, yes or no?

 

All one needs to do to show that racism causes differences in IQ is show that racist social policies exist that have created inequality in environment between the groups in question (e.g. slavery, segregation and jim crow have unquestionably caused the Socioeconomic divide between Blacks and Whites). This is a fact. From there we can logically conclude that if environmental differences are the sole cause of racial differences in IQ (which has been established by genetic research) then racism is a key component in why there are racial IQ gaps. This can be looked at in different ways and I provided plenty of evidence in those posts which you ignored.

Example:

Claim #3: Nothing has shown whites and blacks have equivalent in ability or genetics.

The equivalence in genetic potential for intelligence between Whites and Blacks has been demonstrated by controlling for environmental variables that influence IQ, showing that the Black-White IQ gap can be eliminated (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1996). Further evidence in the form of research showing Black IQ converging on White IQ, racial admixture studies show low to no correlation between White ancestry and high Black IQ, intervention programs showing IQ can be boosted and adoption studies showing that Black IQ can equal White IQ when environment is similar support the pure environmental model for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap indicating that there is no genetic component (Nisbett, 2005). Between the years 1972 and 2002 Blacks gained 4-7 IQ points significantly reducing the Black-White IQ gap (Dickens and Flynn, 2006). Differences in IQ between Blacks and Whites are not caused by genetic differences and recent research shows that there are almost no genetic polymorphisms that have been discovered which are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range(Nisbett, 2012).

So there is your scientific proof. As for Lee like I said if you want his involvement in this debate then you can contact him yourself. I am well aware that one of the dishonest debate tactics of racists in these discussions is manipulation. So I am not taking the bait. You don't need me to contact him. You are the one who supports his work so you can do that.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), and I see you're backing off on Lee again. Just admit you have no intention whatsoever of making a thread addressing his critique of Nisbett's conclusions. You can even cue the shrill cries of racism as a cover again.

Prove unequal environment linked to racism is the type of environmental input that can cause IQ differences. You're making claims on environment in general without any consideration of type of environment. What proof do you have that the unequal environment you refer to is all caused by racism and not the average low IQ of blacks and other low average IQ groups? What about groups like the Chinese that have had exposure to racism yet have higher average IQs than whites? How about the Jews?

Epic fail.

Where are the reams of scholars that agree with your thesis? You're still reaching. Good luck with that.

 

You're getting really desperate. You didn't address any of the sources that I cited and you are inventing excuses for ignoring the evidence. I have already proven that IQ gaps are caused by environmental differences related to racism and not genetic differences. The Chinese and Jews or African Immigrants to America for that matter do not have the same history with racism as African-Americans which has damaged them socially, economically, physically and psychologically. Not only can IQ differences be linked to racist discrimination but so can health disparities. Ignoring evidence does not change facts. Which scholars agree with me? Why don't you check some of the sources I provided at the end of the Rushton-Suzuki video which I also provided in the description of the video? The American Psychological Association provided an official statement which supports my conclusions on the matter and clearly state that a genetic interpretation for the cause of group differences in IQ is not supported by empirical evidence. The article that Nisbett co-authored which I linked to in my last post is seen as a follow up to this research.

So there is a lot of evidence indicating that environmental differences cause racial differences in IQ and plenty of evidence of racist discrimination in history. If you can't grasp these basic arguments that is your problem. When I make the thread about critics of Nisbett's work you will be shut down once and for all. How you decide to respond is your choice.

 

I did address them. They don't say the IQ gap was caused by racism. That's your personal conclusion which has no scientific weight.

So you're changing the subject, again completely dropping addressing the Lee review at all, while you continue to insist all of Nisbett's conclusions are valid because some people praised him.

You quote Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns, but even that document doesn't say there's a shred of evidence that the IQ gap was caused by a subjective term like "racism." Simply saying that X percentage may have environmental input isn't proof of "racism" being the major factor - or even a factor at all. "Racism" is a belief, after all. Nothing more.

I just did a search on the subject and found an opinion survey of people in the field in which most respondents believed that genetics was the cause of IQ differences internationally.

Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests was published in the spring of 2016.

The largest percentage of respondents stated international IQ differences were primarily genetic in a listing of possible causes of which included "discrimination" which received very low probability ratings. Only 5 of 71 respondents thought that genes had no relation to the IQ differences.

Contrast this with the Survey of expert opinion on intelligence and aptitude testing, published in 1987. Since the 80s, the number of scholars attributing genetics as a substantial cause of IQ differences has increased, not decreased, and even then "is overwhelming support for a significant within-group heritability for IQ, and a majority of respondents feel that black-white and socioeconomic status IQ differences are also partially hereditary." Since then, we have more instead of fewer scholars accepting the idea that genetics is the major cause of group IQ differences.

And as I've said before, since areas of Africa with the least contact with whites have much markedly lower average IQs, it's almost as if you're stating that white people raised black IQ. And since everyone started in primitive and deprived conditions, why do Africans still so lag when they have had a far more hospitable climate than Europeans and north Asians have? How do we know the low average IQ in African didn't CAUSE the environmental conditions, rather than the other way around?


So in sum, your argument has revolved around the very shaky premises of:

1) Reliance on weak arguments of Nisbett and making excuses why he can't muster a response to a single critical peer review.
2) Stretching environmental influence as proof that "racism" caused the IQ gap, thus "proving" that IQs are really equal in spite of that in the decline of social racist attitudes, the IQ gap remains. (And to state otherwise on the current IQ gap, again cite Nisbett).

 

First of all, you didn't address any of my sources. You just assume that they don't address racial discrimination as a primary cause of environmental differences between Blacks and Whites. Racism isn't just a belief. Racism is also actions based on a belief. A simplified definition is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." Institutional and systematic racism are forms of racism where a society enforces social policies that discriminate against certain groups based on race because of the policy makers belief in racism. This occurred in America and other countries. That is a well-documented fact.

Racism

n.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

So racism can take the form of a belief, action or policy.

Secondly, you are lying about finding that survey in a recent search. That survey was known to you for almost a year on Stumbleinn. The article was posted by Mikemikev and you're actually the first one to respond to it so you can not deny that you were aware of it. Maybe you just have bad memory? You can use that excuse. What you may not have been aware of is that Mikemikev, posting under the name Phill, made a thread to discuss the exact same survey on Sciforum. If you read the thread you will see that his arguments were picked apart (he was actually banned for failing to defend his claims). The authors of the article had an agenda and selectively selected intelligence experts that were sympathetic to their ideas which was exposed in this post. I was involved in this discussion as well. This is the board I had in mind for our debate. They hold posters to a higher standard there in terms of following the rules and providing sources to support your claims. I don't think you would have done well there which is why you ducked the challenge.

Racism is of course not the only factor in the cause of environmental differences between groups. Culture is a factor. Education is a factor. If you give tests to people from societies that were not raised in the culture of the test or have a formal education that could prepare them for answering the questions of the test then they will not do well. This is even true for tests like Raven's Progressive Matrices which were supposed to be culture-free but rely on pattern recognition which is developed in societies with a formal education and are in fact culture loaded. This is a well-documented fact. In the field of psychology it is widely known that IQ tests can be culturally biased. Didn't you say that you learned about intelligence testing in college? I learned these facts in Psychology 101. The nature of your questions indicate that you are both misinformed and desperate for counter arguments. This is the level of debate one expects from posters who regularly post on racist message boards and get their information from racist websites.

One of the common misconceptions of racists is that people from less technologically advanced societies (so-called primitive folk) are stupid. The fact that only several thousand years ago all human societies were like this (e.g. hunter-gatherers with no civilization, writing, formal education, advanced architecture etc.) supports my position. The reasons for human societies progressing at different rates comes down to differences in geography and circumstances. Early civilizations developed around large bodies of water such as river territories which allowed their populations to increase making the formation of laws and government necessary to regulate social interaction. Technology was easier to spread in some parts of the world over others. Growing crops was easier in some regions such as the Fertile Crescent vs. Rain Forests or Deserts. Some regions don't have many animals that they can domesticate. This was all addressed in Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel.

Furthermore, anthropological and archeological research indicates that human intelligence emerged with the development of human linguistic behavior and was not unevenly differentiated across geographic populations over the course of human evolution. Anatomically Modern Humans descend from one evolutionary lineage with some slight interbreeding with archaic humans which explains why all human populations have a common cognitive capacity. The common evolutionary history of our species combined with the recent origin of our species is the reason why no human population is smarter than another. This was discussed in this thread.


You should also read these two articles on the subject:

You've got some reading to do and you're not going to bully me in to avoiding using Nisbett as a source. You're obsession with discrediting Nisbett is going to come to an end soon when my thread is made and you have the choice to defend Lee's arguments or bow out of discussion.

 

Great job repudiating racism EgalitarianJay. Keep up the good work.

 

Thread Closure- 78 pages

If you wish to continue the discussion, start a new thread