Article reveals racial IQ gap is not genetic

The "Idiotic Flower Pots/Beds" (Figure 10.15 from Psychology 9th Edition by David Myers) image you keep complaining about illustrates the position of world class geneticists such as Richard Lewontin which explains how group differences in IQ can entirely be caused by environmental differences. Differences in environmental conditions between groups can have a strong impact on the nurturing of intelligence which can be reflected in the IQ score (or any other form of mental testing).

This is taught in college classes on Differential Psychology around the world:

(Start at 47:00)



The fallacy of your argument is in assuming that income level and schools are the only important environmental variables impacting children of different demographic groups. Psychological factors also impact scores on standardized tests and they can NOT be controlled by living in the same neighborhood, attending the same school or eliminating test bias on the SAT. So pointing out that SAT scores correlate strongly with IQ and Black and Whites score differently on the test is meaningless (also citing The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education to support a hereditarian argument of the mental inferiority of Blacks is silly).

"The degree to which each variable impacts intelligence is unknown and impossible to determine since there are too many factors to consider. What matters is that genetics can be ruled out based on sound genetic reasoning and recent research on genome-wide association studies also support this position. Asking why Group X has higher IQ than Group Y when both have been discriminated against historically is also completely meaningless as not all groups have been discriminated against in the same way and to the same extent and cultures can change over time allowing a formally oppressed group to rise in Socioeconomic Status which can also be reflected in IQ score. - EgalitarianJay02

"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

Furthermore your argument is completely worthless when you consider research from genome-wide association studies showing that genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association. That research has gone unchallenged since I updated this thread.

If genetic intelligence tests can not predict your genetic potential for intelligence and the variance of SNPs associated with high intelligence are not distributed across geographic populations then genetic research does not support the position that differences in average IQ scores are indicative of differences in genetic potential between groups.

Your argument is invalid and based on a pseudoscientific premise.

"The racialists are claiming things about genes and their relationship to phenotypes. I am not. Thus, they must make a positive argument for how genetic differences between the so-called races are responsible for any measured difference in phenotype. Since they cannot make a positive argument, they cannot make the claim. Thus the burden of proof is on them.

I have never said that I can "prove" that genetic differences are not responsible for measured phenotypic differences. What I have said is that what we know about genotype through phenotype relationships makes such a claim highly unreasonable. Thus population genetic theory supports my position. In addition, a number of experiments on gene x environment interaction support my position. In the case of the racialists, population genetic theory does not support their position and they can not produce any credible experiments that produce their position. Under these conditions, scientists would say that their claims are bogus." - Joseph Graves

PSEUDOSCIENCE shows a total indifference to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments— instead, it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories, faked footprints, blurry photos, and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine modern scientific literature is not cited. Real research is never done. Generally pseudoscientists never present any valid evidence of any kind whatsoever for their claims. One of the most bizarre recent tactics of pseudoscientists is to publish a novel, a work of fiction in which essentially everything is made up by the author— as usual in works of fiction!— but then to turn directly around and treat the completely made-up material as if it were actual, factual and researched. Recent examples of this tactic are The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield (1994), and The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown (2003). This is really having your cake and eating it too, because the authors, when taken to task for gross errors and mis-statements, calmly say, “Can't you read? It's fiction, not non-fiction,” and yet when not taken to task for equally gross errors, sneakily treat them as established facts and build upon them to generate yet more best-selling books. - Rory Coker

 

I totally Busted Ejays "Flower Bed" crap.
100% Busted it on Schools, Income, etc.
So he just reposts/re-SPAMS it, unable to have logical discussion debate EVER.

So now, with NOTHING real/measurable left, he says it's "Psychogical".
So why do we need ANY charts or data?
As if whites with under $10,000 incomes don't have as many or more Psychological issues as blacks with the same or much higher incomes!
Talk about peer pressure/inferiority!

So Let's see the CHART/GRAPHIC on your claimed Black Psychological Issues vs Asians and Whites.
(aside fom low/very low IQ, which itself could be classified as a Psych issue)

Your posts are all SPAM, RE-SPAM, RE-RE-SPAM, RE-RE-RE-SPAM, and you are unable to have any linear and logical discussion without compensating by trying to Bury people with intentionally distracting and lengthy/Voluminous Pictures/Boobtubes or quote-boxing some Black College 'house scientist: "Graves digging."

((And unofficially/unstatistically, merely anecdotally, just noted by many,
1. Blacks have less self-consciousness, and ergo less Neurosis/'Woody Allens' than whites.
2. and although they commit many more Murders than whites per capita, they have less Psycho Mass Muderers than Whites.
Self-consciousness/awareness/neurosis/Psych issues are a byproduct of otherwise generally positive higher IQ.
3. Yet these "unconfidant" and loud children have the boldness to Blurt out loud in movie theaters/Classrooms, and excel in on stage athletics and music, but their Psyche evaporates for tests only in the same classrooms/even all black ones? hmmm))
`

 

Nothing real or measurable? You mean like Genome-wide Association studies which refute your claim and which you have NOT addressed? Your inability to address this research is ironic considering you want to claim racial hierarchies in intelligence but can't defeat a Black American in debate on the subject. Psychological Effects on test takers is one factor. There are others such as parenting style, cultural values, study habits, lack of interest in academic pursuits or lack of effort in general which can have an effect on the average score and have nothing to do with genetic potential for intelligence.

Motivation alone can have an impact on SAT score. Imagine if instead of having a good score and having a chance to go to college and do more school work to get a job in the workforce a group of students were guaranteed $10 million each if they attended SAT prep classes and got a high score on an SAT test. Do you honestly believe that you would not see improvement in average SAT score then?

Your argument is a blend of pseudoscience, promoting racist stereotypes and bogus complaints about not addressing data....while ignoring data!



Description: After overcoming a challenging childhood, Richard Jenkins is headed to Harvard University on a full scholarship.

 

Like I said.
Ejay is UNABLE to have a logical or linear debate.
His "Flower beds" were busted by the fact it's Not socioeconomic.
Leaving him out on an Empty "it must be psychological" Limb.
UNABLE to statistically evidence or prove his claim that Blacks show lower IQ/SAT scores because of "Psychological issues", he Spams up two anecdotal boobtubes.
The usual.

You got two problems.
1. You're wrong
2. You are nowhere near capable enough of pulling off a victory even if you were right.
You just try and 'bury em with BS.'
The worse you lose, the longer and more media-filled the post/posts.

Forget Racism a significant problem.
If you're good, you blow them away. (just as blacks already Have in sports/music)
And we just had a two term Black President.

Higher IQ Asians and Jews have overcome "white Racism" and surpassed them.
The country and world/continents ONLY make sense in light of the IQ differentials.
Occam's Razor.
Otherwise you need 10,000 excuses/studies (besides emptily entitled blacks and Graves articles), including Guilty/liberal Whites (like Nisbett/Gould) self-flagellating that WE/THEY must be Racists if Black people don't have the same achievement.
That's how ****** up it is.

`

 

This mindless, emotional drivel is why your views are not taken seriously in academia. You have no credibility, not because I said so but because that is reality. If your argument were credible then explain the following:

1. Why can't you address the genetic research I presented?

2. Why can't you cite one scholar supporting your position who has defended their research in debate in an academic setting in the last 5 years?

3. What science message boards have you posted on about this topic where you were not banned in disgrace?

Invoking Occam's Razor is the last resort of a beaten man. You're wrong because science says so. You can of course continue to believe what you want to believe but if the best you've got to offer in debate is racist attacks on reputable scholars and whining about embedded Youtube videos and pictures then you've got nothing.

 

Great post. So at this point in the debate we have two opponents of the position that racial differences in IQ can 100% be explained by environmental differences. Empress argued that the significant impact of nutritional deficits on IQ does not apply to children growing up in America because in her words "we don't have starving people here." In fact we do. While not as bad as developing nations on average I provided evidence that starvation does exist among America's poor and effects minorities such as Blacks and Hispanics disproportionately. You have shown that lack of food availability and poor nutrition quality have had lasting effects on IQ.

Taxonomy26 insists that SAT scores which strongly correlate with IQ prove that the Black-White IQ gap has a genetic basis because Whites do better on average at the same income level, within the same schools and even at lower income levels than middle class Blacks. I countered this argument by pointing out that there are more factors that have an effect on test score than family income or test bias. Taxonomy26 complained that my sources do nothing but make excuses, invoked Occam's Razor to claim that his argument was simpler and therefore correct, defended his position by appealing to racist stereotypes, attacked the credibility of my sources with racist snipes and whined about my overuse of pictures and videos in my posts.

The arguments of both opponents were addressed and refuted and neither one responded to the genetic research in my posts that updated this thread!

Contrary to what Taxonomy26 claimed the pure environmental model for the cause of group differences in IQ does not rely on a series of excuses and isn't too complicated to understand. Genetic research and the nature of environmental factors are both complex subjects but both are very simple explanations for the cause. Group differences in IQ are either 100% caused by genetic differences, 100% caused by environmental differences or partially caused by both (regardless of the ratio e.g. 50-50 vs. 60-40 vs. 80-20 etc.).

Environmental factors can have long lasting impacts on IQ. We pointed out examples of extreme environmental differences such growing up in an environment deprived of environmental stimuli (e.g. barrel vs. home-schooled boys) or external factors permanently effecting brain function such as getting hit in the head with a baseball bat (brain trauma which causes permanent brain damage and come from many sources including accidental head collision such as a car crash, getting in fights with classmates or in public, domestic abuse, being physically assaulted by a stranger or playing full-contact sports such as Football, Wrestling or Boxing where there is a high risk of suffering brain damage).

Nutrition also effects intelligence and behavior. There are psychological and cultural factors that have an effect on intelligence and behavior. There are also epigenetic effects which can impact a group of people over the course of generations.

My Youtube videos actually do serve a purpose other than to "bury 'em" (is there something wrong with presenting a large quantity of factual and useful information?).

Consider for example the case of Richard Jenkins interviewed on CNN by Brooke Baldwin. Here we have a young Black man who grew up in poverty, sleeping in homeless shelters who was ridiculed by jealous classmates for being smart, who defied the odds and was granted a scholarship to attend college. In the other video we have Dr. Ben Carson another Black man who grew up in a bad environment in Detroit who was ridiculed by students and accused of being stupid for poor academic performance who grew up to become the world's most renowned and respected brain surgeon. He credits his later academic and career success to his mother placing value on education and getting him and his brother to read books at the library.

These are two cases of African-Americans raised in bad environments who became successful because they placed value on education and made the effort to succeed. Rags to riches stories are real and making an effort to be successful takes you a long way. Rather than making excuses I have merely shown how environment can have detrimental effects on the ability to learn. Carson is right that the mind is very powerful. Positive thinking, proper use of resources and effort can change your life.

Even Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States and successful two-term President who left office with a 60% approval rating admitted to being a troubled youth who abused drugs, partied, was rebellious and didn't take academics seriously at one point attributing his behavior to depression and anger over the feeling of abandonment he felt from his father not being in the home and playing an active role in his life.



He now recognizes this attitude as making excuses and I agree that people who don't put in the effort to succeed and blame society for their failures are making excuses. But that's not to say that their attitude is not influenced by environmental and cultural factors that have nothing to do with their genetic potential for intelligence. Ben Carson was also a Presidential Candidate and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Now between them, despite his excuses in his youth, I find Obama to be far more rational. His educational background prepared him for being a successful politician and lawmaker who was mentally fit to be President of the United States while Carson in my opinion made a complete fool of himself. If you put Obama in an emergency room however and asked him to perform brain surgery he wouldn't have a clue what he was doing.

Laziness and illogical thinking can have detrimental effects on a person's success while having nothing to do with their genetic potential for intelligence. Consider for example the case of Michael Rotondo, a 30 year old man living with his parents who recently lost a court case to continue living with his parents and avoid eviction who complained that he made no serious attempt to get a job despite having a college background. This man labeled by media as "deadbeat son" also lost a custody battle over his own son after an ex-girlfriend complained about him being abusive and not paying child support. Rotondo was also interviewed by Brooke Baldwin.




These examples show that life outcomes are much more complex than Person or Group A is dumb and Person or Group B is smart due to genetic differences between individuals and groups. As someone who grew up in middle class neighborhoods that were majority White and majority Black I saw my fair share of Richard Jenkins and Michael Rotondos. There were poor kids in both areas who were highly intelligent. There were smart kids who had the wealth and resources to be successful who were lazy or spoiled and didn't take academics seriously. There were children who felt threatened by myself and others for being smarter than them who had average or below average intelligence (Black and White) and massive behavioral problems (which led to diagnoses such as ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Schizophrenia, Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder).

Some of them also came from broken homes, suffered child abuse and sexual abuse. The boy who threatened to hit me with a baseball bat for example who underwent counseling after he was expelled from school (not only for the baseball bat threat but threatening to bring a gun to school and shoot me after he was suspended because I reported him) admitted that he witnessed his Grandfather being shot and murdered in front of him. He was placed in foster care and his mother was dying of cancer around the time that he threatened me.

After I beat him up in a Football drill in high school because he threatened to give me a Rodney King beating in the locker room for looking at him when some teammates laughed at him for not being able to put on his shoulder pads he stopped trying to bully me and actually made an attempt to be nice. However he never actually apologized and I saw him bully others so I think his change in behavior was more out of respect for me standing up to him than a genuine change of heart when it comes to using bullying tactics to be emotionally abusive.

I knew some people growing up who didn't get the grades they could have because they were taking drugs, addicted to video games, partying too much or sexually promiscuous and too caught up in their social lives, addictions and family drama to focus on academic success and getting a good job. Some of those factors are due to bad choices, some cultural factors and some unfortunate situations that can be labeled excuses (or the fault of the individual especially when it comes to bad choices) but are still environmental factors unrelated to genetic potential for intelligence.

Now that genetic research has advanced to the point where we can find out if genetic predisposition to certain health conditions and mental characteristics are population specific we have definitive answers to the cause of group differences in IQ. They are NOT caused by genetics differences between the groups, which while having an effect some traits do not determine complex behavioral traits like intelligence and personality.

 

This post is so illogical and/or disingenuous, and/or FUNNY, it's hard to believe.

Putting up two Cherry Picked ANECDOTES with an outstanding [50%-White]-Black vs some Mental issue White as an "example"/"Proof" that Races don't have different AVERAGE innate IQ. (or other abilites/predispositions).

Like someone EVER said there can't be a smart black and a dumb white!
My last post to you in fact stated/Theorized/conceded that whites have more neuroses (ie Psycho Mass Murderers vs common Murders) that can accompany higher IQ.

And your post with the usual/gratuitous/obligatory/Juvenile Youtubes/Multimdia for attention.
Do they impress you? Sound and color?
Another ie, your Un!que post!ng of p!ctures of study authors! that appparently impress You.. only.
Not to mention the obligatory/OCD Graves/'Black scientist' quote box,
replete with
extra lines including

'Sincerely'

his
address, and even another
2 lines for
phone numbers!
for more volume)

It's incredible that after at least a decade, this is your state of debate, and these Juvenile bloated, coloring-book/picture posts litter every page.
They are unwittingly demonstrative of who is correct on the Race/IQ issue.
`

 

What's funny to me is that you claim to be right in this debate while displaying the following:

1. You have poor Reading Comprehension

I compared Richard Jenkins to Michael Rotondo. Richard Jenkins is an 18 year old African-American (two Black parents) who spent two years living in homeless shelters dealing with poor environmental conditions who earned a scholarship to attend Harvard University despite a challenging environment and peer pressure from classmates who tried to discourage and shame him for placing value in higher education. Michael Rotondo is a 30 year old White man who lost a court battle with his parents who wanted to evict him from their house because he made no serious attempt to find a job despite having a college education.

Jenkins had a much harder upbringing than Rotondo but is on track to lead a much more successful life. Ironically you are using neuroticism as an excuse for the failures of Rotondo who had years to find a job, the educational background to get one and lost a custody battle over his son with a woman who says he was abusive and didn't pay over $2,000 in child support. In other words he displayed some of the negative characteristics you commonly associate with Blacks and you used excuses for him while accusing me of making excuses for well-educated Blacks scoring lower on the SAT. You didn't read my post properly because I clearly compared Barack Obama to Ben Carson not Michael Rotondo.

Obama admitted to making similar excuses in his youth while telling college graduates at an HBCU not to think like he did. His anger and depression over abandonment by his father was cited as his reason for abusing drugs, partying and not taking school seriously because he developed an identity crisis as a biracial kid raised by his White mother and Grandparents who experienced anti-Black racism and whose racial identity was influenced by American media. He cleaned up his act and is now viewed as a positive role model for Black youth and people in general.

My examples support my point that I am not saying that environmental factors such as psychological disturbance, negative cultural influence, Socioeconomic Status, racial discrimination, peer pressure, distractions and addictions can prevent a person from becoming successful. They can only do this if you allow them to however they are environmental factors that can have an effect on academic performance and are unrelated to genetic potential for intelligence.

2. You have a fixation on style over substance

Instead of focusing on the scientific arguments I presented you choose to talk about how many pictures and videos I post focusing and complaining about the aesthetics of my post rather than the arguments I am actually making. The only reasons why you would do this is because you don't know how to respond to the actual research I presented and want to distract from the substance of my post with complaints about them being too bright and colorful because you think I find the pretty pictures impressive.

If I were to behave like you I could point out that you have the worst sentence structure I have ever seen by a poster on a message board. Your use of underlining, bold and the way you space your sentences is unnecessary and bizarre which has been pointed out by a number of people. By comparison I use an appropriate amount of space between my paragraphs that make my posts presentable and easy to read which is what you are taught to do in grade school and college for writing assignments.

I do take full use of the message board software to make my posts presentable and aesthetically appealing to readers which you should be grateful for instead of complaining about me adding the contact information of Dr. Graves (that's how he signs his emails) in my quote of our email exchanges (info is public knowledge and I was given permission to post them).


3. Your posts are full of juvenile insults against reputable scholars

Name-calling is childish. There is a profound difference between calling someone something that describes their behavior or ideological viewpoint (e.g. calling an advocate of Scientific Racism a racist or calling a scholar a fraud, charlatan, quack or crackpot who has officially faced such charges or giving any politician, pundit or public figure a label that describes their political views such as Conservative or Liberal) and calling them out of their name or hurling slurs at them.

For example Empress in a previous discussion continually called scholars I cited names such as Richard Nisbett "Nisbutt" and Eric Turkheimer "Turdheimer." You like to hurl racial abuse at Graves by calling him a "House Boy," "House Scientist", "Uncle Joe" (yeah we get it you hate Black people and feel threatened by Black Scientists) which is blatantly racist and a violation of this board's rules.

Imagine if I referred to Linda Gottfredson as a wrinkly, old witch and repeatedly pointed out her gender and racial background when discussing her research as a psychologist. You would report my posts and complain about racism and misogyny and rightly so because such behavior is below the parameters of civil debate and a violation of the rules.

4. You have continued to ignore the genetic research I presented in this thread

If you are going to debate someone and expect to be taken seriously you need to respond to their research and post on-topic. Refusing to do so is thread derailment. You already had a post deleted for that and racism. This isn't so much a debate as it is me providing quality information while you ignore it and focus on my posting aesthetics. Appeal to Ridicule is not an argument and your tactics are distracting from actual debate.

 

Nice summation.

FTR I thought that you might also be interested in reading up on this Ohio study comparing violence in black and white neighborhoods suffering from similar rates of poverty.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.587.5383&rep=rep1&type=pdf

While the above deserves an entire thread of it's own it effectively exposes yet another fallacy common amongst those who disingenuously attempt to abuse race as a means to denigrate and demean our fellow citizens, many of whom are less fortunate than ourselves.

When we combine the scientific evidence provided to date in this thread with the findings of those in that study above it all comes down to one inescapable conclusion.

We are all just one race, the HUMAN RACE. Variations in melanin are as cosmetic as are variations in hair and eye color.

There is no correlation between these minor external differences in appearance and our cognitive faculties. We are all equally human and all equally capable of making the best of what we have or failing to achieve our own full potential. Yes, our socio-economic circumstances into which we were born does play a role but it plays the same role regardless as to whether we were born as melanin challenged or not because those circumstances don't know or care about our genetic makeup.

 

I made a whole string (or 3) you haven't challenged, nor a single post in this or ANY.
You're good on the cheer leader/High-fiver side though, but just an amateur googler with No knowledge of the topic or Evo in general

Above is laughable
NO one except 12 IQers thinks race is just about "melanin."
Forensic anthropoligists regularly, and in court, tell race from skeletal remains alone, and with NO skin or other soft tissue.
Skeletal would also include Skull differences.

See my last post here/top of the board when you posted.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...peated-here-regularly.541670/#post-1069613214
Races are SETS of features (stature, Face/skull difference, musculo-skeletal differences, etc,) born of Tens of thousands of years of separate geographic Evolution.

And no one logical thinks that 100,000 years of human evolution to wildly different geographies (and we are more strongly marked/differentiated morphologically than most subspecies) and differently advanced/urbanized societies would produce IDENTICAL cognitive development/intelligence in all groups.
That's not remotely logical.

James Watson, Co-Nobel winner for discovering DNA:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

[......]
In his interview with the Times on Oct. 14th, we learned that:

... [Watson] is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says Not really", and I know that this "Hot Potato" is going to be difficult to address.

These thoughts were a continuation of an important theme in his new book 'Avoid Boring People':

... there is No firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.

`​

 

The problem though is that while Forensic Anthropologists are in high demand to defend the concept of race in legal cases their research doesn't always hold up to scientific scrutiny. For example I pointed out to you in a previous debate that George Gill, a Forensic Anthropologist, lost a major legal case involving the racial classification of Kennewick Man. Gill claimed that Kennewick Man has a Caucasoid bone structure and was therefore not the ancestor of Native American tribes claiming him who wanted his bones buried in accordance with United States law that the remains of Native American ancestors not be disturbed (i.e. no grave-robbing for science or other purposes).

Not only was this disrespectful to their religious practices honoring their dead, Kennewick Man, known to the tribes as "The Ancient One" was used in TV documentaries to promote the idea that the ancestors White Europeans (Caucasians) were in America before the ancestors of Native Americans (traditional classified as Mongoloids).



Modern DNA analysis confirmed however that Kennewick Man was more closely related genetically to modern Native Americans.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26087396

"Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans. In order to resolve Kennewick Man's ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ∼1× coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide."

So in a famous legal case that had major implications for the population history of America Gill's defense of the concept of race failed to hold up to the test of modern scientific research. Bones don't lie but because of discordant variation among human populations anthropologists can draw incorrect conclusions about genetic affinity of skeletal remains. - EgalitarianJay

That's your opinion however the scientific consensus of actual experts on the subject (Evolutionary Biologists and Biological Anthropologists) is that the recency of human origins relative to the emergence of other species indicates that no major genetic differentiation took place within human populations. 100,000 years is a relatively short period based on evolutionary time scales. By the time humans left Africa they already had the mental capacity to adapt to the various climates they encountered which is supported by the similarities and survival strategies of anatomically modern humans across the world during the Pleistocene Epoch.

See previous Discussion: Politicalforum - The Geographical Origins of Modern Humans

Cliff Notes:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.

I can't take James Watson seriously on this subject. He displayed intellectual cowardice when Rageh Omaar asked him for an interview for the TV documentary Race and Intelligence: Science's Last Taboo. Watson declined admitting that he was not qualified to speak on the subject and that his views were based largely on reading a book by Richard Lynn.

"No one I ever deal with in the intelligence business takes Lynn seriously. He is certainly a very foolish man and many consider him to be dishonest." - Richard Nisbett




Watson did give an interview with Henry Louis Gates Jr on the subject where he basically mumbled semi-coherent gibberish about racial hereditarianism being able to help people better understand each other and tried to flatter Gates by pointing out that "you" Blacks dominate Basketball to make a point about there being nothing wrong with talking about racial differences in intelligence because they are obvious in athletics (echoing Jon Entine's Taboo: Why Blacks Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk about It).

While James Watson is certainly an accomplished geneticist he disgraced himself with his support of Scientific Racism, displaying an inability to defend his beliefs which were basically based on racial stereotypes and after resigning from his position at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory due to the criticism he got in the media and scientific community over the controversial statements you quoted he auctioned off his Nobel Prize.

No scientist in recent history has fallen from grace harder than James Watson, all over racist remarks he could not defend scientifically by his own admission. Watson in the past made other controversial comments supporting eugenics such as parents being allowed to abort fetuses if DNA testing determined that they would be born gay.

"If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn't want a homosexual child, well, let her....We already accept that most couples don't want a Down child. You would have to be crazy to say you wanted one, because that child has no future." - James Watson


PSEUDOSCIENCE always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough. Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or minerals under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a map! Maybe Uri Geller is “psychic,” but are his powers really beamed to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as Uri used to claim? Maybe plants are “psychic,” but why does a bowl of (inorganic) mud respond in exactly the same way, in the same bogus “experiment?” A local psychic says she can commune mentally with your pet— but she also says a photo or fax or computer-printout image of the pet works just as well as the pet itself for her communing! - Rory Coker

The lack of credibility for your position is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person. But let me know when geneticists actually develop a DNA test that can predict intelligence accurately enough to be used in a real scientific study. If someone were dumb enough to take the one currently available that said I had a lower likelihood of having increased intelligence and high likelihood of going to college and they applied Watson's logic to whether or not they wanted to raise a smart child we might end up with a mother aborting a fetus that could have grown up to become the scientist who finds a cure for HIV/AIDS, revolutionizes Space Travel or becomes a President who resolves a Nuclear Crisis!

 

Exactly - we don't have that in this country.

No, you need to prove they DO effect it. I already rebutted your assertions on the other thread.

No, you actually haven't. Your basic argument revolves around "white social shunning makes black people have low average IQs." There is zero science to support that assertion.

You're just repeating nonsense that's already fallen flat due to your inability to prove this OR that has been directly debunked by science.

The burden of proof remains on you as these are YOUR assertions. You obviously cannot defend them, thus you try to yet again shift the burden of proof. Prove that white shunning and "chattel slavery" made black IQ low.

You continue to ignore the lack of high environmental impact on IQ from adolescence through adulthood, but continue to make arguments based on a debunked myth of overall lifespan 50/50 environmental/genetic input. This is unscientific. Show the specific science that exonerates your claim of high environmental impact on adult IQ, and impact on adult IQ from social shunning.

I've already responded to your rehashed arguments on the other thread. Your limit to defend them has been reached.

 

Nobody said that severe malnutrition didn't affect IQ. What you're trying to claim here, apparently, is that black people are all grossly malnourished. Is that your reasoning for the IQ gap?

 

Clearly so, when most interracial violent crime is black-on-white, and blacks commit the highest per capita rate of hate crimes. That's quite a bit of racial denigration going on there.

 

Yes we do. I cited Worldhunger.org proving this and showing that it disproportionately effects minorities such as Blacks and Hispanics. Some children in America are starving whether you admit it or not. Aside from images proving this you can go to your local homeless shelter and talk to children who grew up in homes where they did not receive a sufficient amount of food. Derideo_Te also provided evidence that poor nutrition quality effects intelligence and mood and can have long term effects on behavior. You did not respond to any of this research.

PSEUDOSCIENCE shows a total indifference to criteria of valid evidence. The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific experiments— instead, it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony, stories, faked footprints, blurry photos, and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine modern scientific literature is not cited. Real research is never done. Generally pseudoscientists never present any valid evidence of any kind whatsoever for their claims. One of the most bizarre recent tactics of pseudoscientists is to publish a novel, a work of fiction in which essentially everything is made up by the author— as usual in works of fiction!— but then to turn directly around and treat the completely made-up material as if it were actual, factual and researched. Recent examples of this tactic are The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield (1994), and The Da Vinci Code, by Dan Brown (2003). This is really having your cake and eating it too, because the authors, when taken to task for gross errors and mis-statements, calmly say, “Can't you read? It's fiction, not non-fiction,” and yet when not taken to task for equally gross errors, sneakily treat them as established facts and build upon them to generate yet more best-selling books. - Rory Coker

I have already provided evidence that institutional racism such as that experienced by African-Americans is directly linked to psychological disturbance, negative cultural influence, negative images in media, Socioeconomic disparities, health disparities, nutritional deficits and environmental toxicity and many other variables all of which can and DO have an effect on AVERAGE IQ as well as personality and behavior. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why they can not and do not.

The research I have presented is actually taught in college courses on differential psychology, anthropology, world history, genetics and recognized by the United States government.



"But the fundamental point is that there is no scientific basis to the claim that there is a genetic component to group differences in IQ. The reported gaps can 100% be explained environmentally, environmental inequality exists of which there are many, many variables (ex. social discrimination (stereotype threat), environmental toxicity (pollution), malnutrition, education, diet, stress, parenting, national culture, trouble sleeping, mental illness, diseases (ex. Multiple Sclerosis and Malaria) etc.).

The degree to which each variable impacts intelligence is unknown and impossible to determine since there are too many factors to consider. What matters is that genetics can be ruled out based on sound genetic reasoning and recent research on genome-wide association studies also support this position. Asking why Group X has higher IQ than Group Y when both have been discriminated against historically is also completely meaningless as not all groups have been discriminated against in the same way and to the same extent and cultures can change over time allowing a formally oppressed group to rise in Socioeconomic Status which can also be reflected in IQ score." - EgalitarianJay02


"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

No, I provided genetic evidence supporting my position which you IGNORED. Ignoring my argument, my research supporting my position and misrepresenting my position is thread derailment.

Since I have asked you repeatedly to respond to research and stop misrepresenting my positions you will be reported.

PSEUDOSCIENCE often pretends to be one side of a legitimate scientifc controversy. That is, pseudoscientists like to pretend that “the jury is still out,” and that “further research” is needed to clarify the validity of their beliefs. This is essentially never the case. There is no controversy among astronomers concerning astrology— they unanimously agree it is nonsense. There is no controversy among physicists concerning Velikovsky's ideas— they are unanimously condemned as simply wrong. There is no controversy among biologists regarding “Intelligent Design”— it is dismissed as a set of religion-based beliefs empty of scientific content. There is no case known to me in which a pseudoscientist's claims have taken advantage of any genuine scientific controversy. Instead, pseudoscientists operate entirely outside science, and their claims and beliefs are not relevant to any known scientific puzzle or uncertainty. One frightening trend observed more and more strongly during the last half of the 20th Century was the incorporation of contrarian pseudoscience into the core beliefs of various fundamentalist religions, so that today a fundamentalist is almost certain to deny the facts of global warming, biological evolution, human origins, etc., and to affirm that basic scientific research is essentially of no value. - Rory Coker

My tolerance of your misrepresentation of my views and refusal to respond to research presented that supports my actual position has ended.

PSEUDOSCIENCE persuades using misinformation, appeals to widespread belief, rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation, rather than presenting valid evidence (which presumably does not exist). Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of logic and reason known to scholars, and have invented some new ones of their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists also love the “Galileo Argument.” This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries … therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! What is more, anyone who has ever heard of Galileo must be aware that Galileo’s ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his scientific colleagues. It was the established religion which rejected Galileo’s findings, preferring instead a familiar pseudoscience which Galileo’s findings contradicted. Pseudoscientists are fond of the term “proof,” as in, “I'll pay anyone $10,000 if they can prove Bigfoot does not exist!” Or, “ ...if you can prove the earth revolves around the sun,” or “ ...if you can prove that at least some UFOs are not spacecraft from other worlds.” The money is safe, because the concept of a “proof” comes from mathematics and formal logic, and has no counterpart in any description of things, phenomena and processes in our real world. A late-20th-Century magician and mentalist offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove that hypnosis exists. He's in no danger of having to pay up, but his money would be just as secure if he offered $10,000 to anyone who can prove that hypnosis does not exist! - Rory Coker

 

You mean ignoring EVIDENCE like 100 YEARS of IQ Test scores.
80 Years of CONFIRMATORY SAT Test scores which are 88% Correlated.
Which barely moved since the 1960's Despite the great advancement of Blacks socially and economically?

and then making up Excuses like pointing to Gross Third World hunger.... even in the USA.
Or Ejay's desperado/nebulous "Psychological" problems.

This despite all the Shining Stars in Athletics, who somehow managed to overcome "prejudice" and "malnutition" to be the Country and World's Best athletes.
How does one dominate the Sprints, Marathons, and NBA, etc, on such a "Deprived" regimen!!!
You're so hungry can't think, but you can run 26 miles faster/jump higher than anyone!

Yes, somehow the world best Athletes come from the country and World's most "starved" populations.
Yet they can't get their IQ stores near Asians or Whites even at the Same OR More income.

How can this be?

The Realty Check on what is "Pseudo" IS REALITY itself.

ALL your Pseudo-posts and Apologetics 'studies' try to excuse and Rationalize Reality.
You can't really debate because you NEVER use logic.
You have to use Ambiguating PC sources to protect FROM the Evidence/your "Lying eyes"/Logic.

Back to Marching Band College 'house scientist' Graves for more Voodoo/Dogdoo/Pseudo.


EDIT:
Note below, Ejay cannot debate simple logic (what is really Pseudo), and DOES indeed go Right Back/down to NCA&T 'House scientist'/race denier/apologist Graves who has the IQ of a stone, and LIES what consitutes Race.
He can't debate logic, NOR could the "Mr Pseudo", the "FsT" clown Graves at Marching Band college.

`

 

@Taxonomy26

All of the answers to your unsophisticated and silly arguments were addressed by Joseph Graves years ago on a single page.

PBS.org: Race: The Power of An Illusion -Interview with Joseph Graves Jr

Take a crack at that if you want to discuss race and athletics vs. race and intelligence. Since you are unable and unwilling to respond to the genetic research I posted I see no point in debating you any more. You need to be blocked from the thread if you are going to derail it. Meanwhile you can try to respond to my new thread concerning attacks on Egalitarian Scientists like Graves since you made so much of a fuss about him being a liar (and were of course refuted).

 

Nobody is "starving" in this country. This country is properly nourished as I've shown previously. You're just looking for another excuse to blame white people for the low average IQs of certain populations.

Yep - like blaming white people for other groups having low average IQs.

What you did was make a scattershot of claims with zero proof. Further, every one of your "environmental cause" arguments revolves around SES impacts on approximately 3 year olds. That's not an argument.

False claim. Nobody teaches that SES impact on 3 year olds continues into adulthood and lasts a lifetime. Again, you're avoiding the Wilson Effect and the longitudual washout.

That claim was based on a false 50/50 assumption of environmental impact, thus everything Graves said there about environmental influence is wholly false. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

You've done no such thing - there is no proof that white people are to blame for the low average IQs of blacks and Latinos.

Don't threaten people. Simply defend your arguments. You're borderline spamming here. I misrepresented nothing - to invoke "slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination" as causes of the IQ gap is to directly blame white people. That is a scientifically invalid position.

 

Gotta love it when all there is to "support" a vacuous misunderstanding of evolution is an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

The fundamental principle of evolution is that a species must ADAPT to changing environmental conditions IN ORDER TO SURVIVE if there is no alternative like migration.

Our species ADAPTED from tree dwellers to surface dwellers when the forests in Africa were replaced with the open savannas. The food sources in the trees disappeared and without adapting our species would have dwindled. From essentially just being consumers of fruit and vegetation we EVOLVED into hunter-gathers on the plains.

We adapted to being more efficient hunter-gatherers via the use of communication skills that eventually evolved into what we call language today. When we left Africa we continued to survive by being hunter-gatherers. Since all humans have language skills there has been no further adaption in this regard. FTR our ape family cousins are capable of communicating with us via sign language which indicates that this ability was exploited in our adaption to becoming hunter-gatherers.

Once we dispersed over different areas on the planet we no longer needed to adapt because our hunter-gatherer and communication abilities were sufficient to survive in these different geographic locations. For example when we moved into colder regions we did not need to evolve our own thick furry pelts because we could just use the pelts of the animals we hunted instead.

Just because we inhabited different areas on the planet did not require us to EVOLVE and ADAPT because the environmental conditions that we encountered were more or less the same everywhere we went. Furthermore we continued to interbreed through exploration and trade.

Now the onus is entirely on those PRETENDING that "race" is defined by variations in "facial features" and "muscular skeleton" differences to PROVE that these are SIGNIFICANT enough to demonstrate a difference in IQ. They can't because they don't exist as proven by the studies provided by the OP.

Furthermore these alleged variations are utterly meaningless. In amongst ALL ethnic groups it is possible to find recessive genetic traits. For instance it possible to find blond and red hair and blue eyes amongst the Hmong.







We are all ONE HUMAN RACE with variations in appearance that are largely cosmetic and have nothing whatsoever to do with IQ regardless of the vapid fallacies of those who have no actual comprehension of evolution.

 

Asinine strawman duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Debunked alt right white supremacist DISINFORMATION duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Case in point Indians (from India) have more in common genetically with Europeans than they do with Africans despite having dark skin.

 

Yes, I did. Now you can either respond to that research or you can't. Since you didn't respond to it last time I posted it here it is again.....

From post #13:

Contrary to what Great Axe claimed Dr. Graves is actually qualified to speak on this subject. He is an expert on biology, genetics, evolution and genomics with a special interest in biological theories of race in terms of classification, intelligence, health conditions and the relationship between genetic and environmental effects on phenotypic traits. He has written articles refuting the claims of some of the most well-known proponents of Scientific Racism.

On this subject specifically Graves shared with me his qualifications to speak on the subject:

"My research is in the area of evolutionary genetics, now more accurately called evolutionary genomics. My PhD was granted in the area of Evolutionary, Environmental, and Systematic Biology. Professional scientists are always undergoing development during their careers, for example I added Next Generation Sequencing data analysis and various bioinformatics protocols to my tool set in the last 5 years." - Joseph Graves

His research is consistent with and expands on the research of scientists working in the fields of psychology and genetics who say that genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association.

Source: Genome-wide quantitative trait locus association scan of general cognitive ability using pooled DNA and 500K single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays Genes, Brains and Behavior, 7, 435–446 (2008 )

I've asked you politely to respond to the research I presented in this thread without distortion of my position. Now respond or find another thread to post in. Any deviation from a direct response to this research will be ignored and considered thread derailment. I have asked moderators to monitor this thread to make sure it remains on-topic.

You are correct and you can enjoy a nice TV special where everything you've said about human evolution has been addressed.



The video above is consistent with the following research:

Cliff Notes:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.


This is real science supported by the consensus of some of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world including:

- The American Psychological Association


- The American Anthropological Association


- The Genetics Society of America


- The National Academy of Sciences

 

Your's is about the most vacuous posting I've ever seen here.
(it's no wonder you just Blighted the board with two One-line wisecracks to Empress)
You don't even know what "appeal to authority" Fallacy IS!

Appeal to Authority is ONLY a Fallacy when the person is not an authority on the topic at hand.
If he is (as Watson on genetics), it's Expert Opinion, and excellent citation.
Appeal to Authority FALLACY would be if I said "Kobe Bryant or Donald Trump says there are no races".

According to your mindblowing Ignorance I couldn't cite Einstein on Relativity because he's an "Authority."
******* DOH!
Incomprehensibly vacuous.
Not even allowed to say in words who goofy this is.
How Ironic we're in an IQ discussion no less.

Above is not about whether we have races or not/whether H sapiens has subdivided.
This was pre-sapeins, Homo/hominid times Jungle--Savannah.

Nevertheless, Sapiens DID further adapt (OBVIOUSLY by appearance) to many different climates. More in fact than just about any other Specie with subspecies/Races.. and for good Geographic Forcing reason.
Not many/NO other species adapted/SPLIT into disparate enough groups/Races to survive in Desert, Jungle, and 10,000' Mountain climes.
one doesn't just get different hair color or nose shape to pull that off.

I already debunked this above.
ALL creatures start moving apart immediately on separation. We are no exception.
You apparently missed the several times (me and ejay) posted youtube explaining this, as if it needs explaing.

In Sapiens case, thee MOST Basic fact theory that EVERYONE ELSE knows is that when we moved North we encountered Winter.
Which meant Clothing, shelter, and how to get and store food when there was little to none.
A bit more Thinking required than just going out and killing another antelope, or picking figs off a tree.
Got it?

Perhaps even Huger was the advent of Agriculture about 10,000 years ago.
All of a sudden we had 10-100x as many calories and a population explosion. (except for sub-Sahara/Australian Aborigines and a few more isolated jungle/island groups)

There was a boom in population, trade, Weights and measures, etc and excess time, written languages, etc.
ie, See the book:
10,000 year explosion
https://www.google.com/search?q=10,000+year+explosision&oq=10,000+year+explosision&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.7058j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

For why sub-Saharan Africans etc got left behind.. besides the earlier needed demands complications of Winter and different environment......

Thats just an Angry, and Laughable claim.
Of all the many subspecies, especially those close to us, we are the Most Strongly Marked and most needed to be more than cosmetically different for all the different enviroments we inhabit.

Do you agree with Chimps having Two Species each with two subspecies/Races?
What about the Two Species of Gorillas, with 6 or 7 subspecies/Races?
The fact is YOU ARE CLUELESS/You didn't even know that.
You have NO Frame of reference for what constitiutes Race in Other species, yet you are so indignant because of your goofy POlitical sensibilities.
Your indignance/anger only makes your Goofy pronouncements Funnier.

And I might add.... all those Chimp and Gorilla Species/subspecies live in small area of Central West Africa, while humans live/had to adapt to Hugely different environments.

And finally, Racial IQ is why Japan (106), a resourceless seismic Rock, Rose to high civilization, then lost half it's male population during WWII, and Japanese Americans Interned and lost everything, Infinitely more successful than resource-rich ie, Congo.

Why Sub-Sahara is an Ungovernable rabble.. as only their IQs (70) would predict.
(Hybrid) American 'Blacks' (85) also have huge problems.

Even Pre-colonially, when Marco Polo came upon China (106), he found Silk, Ceramics, Gunpowder, a Civil Service system, Astronomical records..
While sub-Saharans lived in 1900 largely the way they did 50,000 years ago..
Hunter-Gatherers in Huts.
No wheel, No written language before contact.

You don't know what the Appeal to authority Fallacy is!
You don't know the BASIC out of Africa/Winter reason for more complex cognitive development.
Your post is just Angry garbage
100% ignorant of any facts.
(again! I stuffed your last too)

EDIT:
OH Yes, your 3 MeaningLESS pictures of "Blond Hmong".. meaning WHAT?
One young girl with mosly blondish hair that will probably get darker as she ages. See her roots.
One brown haired woman
One Grayish.

Not, of course, that Any of it says ANYTHING about whether there are Races.
WTF is that?
See: "Hmong: blue eyes, Blond Hair"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hmong_people#blue_eyes,_blonde_hair
or
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Blonde-Hmong-people-barely-known-in-Western-Culture

All it shows is that you think race is only about eye or hair color.
It's such a wrong-headed concept I couldn't figure out why you even posted it.
And it didn't occur to you that their may be a few strains due to intermarriage with ie, the French/earlier Caucs, or that Blue eyes may be a significant mutation among the group?

 

Anyone who cannot respond WITHOUT resorting to puerile flamebaiting and trolling ad homs obviously does not have any factual basis for their white supremacist beliefs about race and IQ.

The response above is an example of an emotive tirade lacking meritworthy content since it is nothing but gainsaying, misconceptions, deflections and taunting.

However the concept of lists was introduced so let's take a look at a list of what was posted.

Fatuous ad hom.
Fallacious accusation.
Failure to grasp that even experts can be wrong in their own fields.
More vacuous ad homs.
Failure to comprehend the fundamental Evolution requirement of isolation.
Bizarre baseless notion that mountain dwellers cannot survive in jungles or deserts.
Weird belief that humans are "separated", AKA isolated, and do NOT interbreed and have not interbred during the last 100 millennia.
Absurd allegation that no clothing, shelter or food storage existed in Africa. (Be amusing to see anyone attempt to prove that drying fruit and smoking/salting meat never happened in Africa.)
Misconceptions about agriculture that actually DISPROVE the baseless allegation about isolation made above since there are 11 separate and distinct different points of origin around the world for the common foods we eat today.
Fallacy that Africa was "left behind" based upon an dearth of knowledge of ancient civilizations in that region. (Oldest mathematical artifact dated around 35,000 years ago was discovered in Southern Africa.)
Projecting ad hom.
Flailing ad hom.
Failure to grasp the evolution concept of actual isolation/separation yet again.
Strange deflection attempting to compare the genocidal traits of the Japanese and Congolese. (Something to do with both places having volcanos perhaps?)
Emotive projection of shortcomings onto others.
Failure to grasp the significance of the genetic variations in people in "separated" groups.
Desperation ad hom for the finale.

All of the above raises the question as to why those who believe in the fallacy of race, IQ and white supremacy are so emotionally invested in it?