Article reveals racial IQ gap is not genetic

So you have NO REAL ON TOPIC REPLY.

You merely complain about the tone in my post that YOU in fact set with your post I responded to
ie

So It was YOU who mocked me, and it was so upside down it was incredible/insulting.
You KNOW NOTHING about Evo, and again, Not even the basics. NOTHING.
While my post/reply was ON TOPIC and FACT-FILLED.

You did similar TWICE above to 'Empress'. One line Cheap shots.

You didn't even know what the Appeal to Authority Fallacy was!!!
How can someone 'debate' that beauty!

So you wasted a whole post covering/Deflecting from your embarrassment and complete LACK of knowledge
complaining about "ad hom."

WTF was the 3 JPGs of the pale Hmong?
Another waste of space embarrassment showing NO understanding.

and I post mainly on Evolution, be it against Evangelical/Koranic deniers or Liberal deniers.

And I am not a "White Supremacist," another False ad hom, which is disproven by many of my posts here.
That's your utterely BLIND emotional Political Response to what I almost Never leave out: higher/est Asian IQ.
We see this shallow/numb reaction ALL the time.
Anyone says "there is race".. is a "white Supramacist."
Never mind what else is said.

This is/was a 100:1 Mismatch.
`

 

I've posted all the relevant research that rebuts and invalidates the core of your IQ gap cause argument that actions by white people caused it, be it discrimination aka social shunning, or whatever.

Yet again you're here for some odd reason demanding I respond to an argument Graves made against people I've never read regarding some racial theory of theirs. I'm still not interested.

Not on psychology. He either accidentally or probably purposely misstated the 50/50 environmental impact in general as if it were a generalized human lifespan fact which of course makes it quite easy to promote the environment gap cause thesis. As I've repeatedly shown, 50/50 is false as there is voluminous, robust evidence of the decreasing environmental impact of IQ as a person ages.

Yep, no psych, which is why he made the incredibly false statement that,

Qualified scholars in whose field it is to know better have already stated the Wilson Effect has shown the 50/50 average to be false:

and

It could be argued that Graves didn't know better because it's not his field. But it cannot be argued that Dickens and Flynn did not know better.

Graves is at minimum guilty of commenting outside of his field of expertise, and is at worst guilty of being aware of what he was saying was wrong but saying it anyway which is intent to deceive.

Thus, anyone that says anything based on a 50/50 assumption is writing pure garbage - without exception.

The rest of the body of your post is a straw-man as you're posting rebuts to people who I have never read and am not familiar with their work. I am specifically referring to the untenability of your continued claim that actions by white people have caused the black/white IQ gap. That is all I have ever discussed with you.

As I have shown previously,

Now that it has been established that due to Wilson Effects in children, environmental impact into adulthood is about .10, not .50 (assuming nothing such as prolonged severe malnutrition which doesn't exist in the west outside of drug addicts, severe alcoholics, and the terminally ill), how is your environmental-cause thesis for large adult IQ gaps defended?

 

This is a partial statement of your view. Your premise is based on the inaccurate claim by Graves that adult IQ is highly environmentally impacted in adulthood as it is in childhood. This is a basic foundational argument which you've had difficulty defending because the data says otherwise.

I've answered this before: Nobody is denying that severe nutritional deficits can impact adult IQ. What you're doing is trying to conflate that with "discrimination" aka social shunning. There is no evidence of this. Reposting Lewontin's flowers isn't evidence of social shunning causing IQ depression, let alone on a society-wide scale.

This is Graves making an argument based on his debunked 50/50 environmental impact on IQ claim. It's a bad argument and holds no water. Since there is minimal environmental impact on adult IQ, environmental conditions aren't relevant, and certainly not ones that revolve around social shunning.

No strawman, he speaks of "in general" as if it applied to everyone in general. It fits nobody beyond about the age of five. Therefore, it is a junk argument. Period.

Where is it shown an overestimate? Literature shows at least .70 in adult IQ with over .90 I've seen in some literature. Rushton estimated at .80 which is the midpoint and for some odd reason, that Rushton took that reasonable midpoint approach you have repeatedly attacked him as a "hereditarian."

You've previously and repeatedly cited Graves' junk quote with the false 50/50 claim to prove high environmental impact of IQ. Now you're trying to construct the idea that low environmental impact on adult IQ still somehow magically produces high environmental impact on adult IQ including as such that social shunning depresses the IQ of tens of millions of people.

What "extremely flawed methodology" was MISTRA based on? The junk argument from Nisbutt in his debunked paperback? I haven't even spoken of MISTRA in this thread but you brought it up, out of the blue.

This author's excerpt is a litany of personal attacks, guilt by association attacks, genetic attacks, ideological alarm-sounding and any attack the author could think of without actually addressing the data. Not relevant.

All I've gathered from this is that you don't like Bouchard so you're trying to find a way of attacking him without addressing his scholarship. Bouchard is just one of many sources I've pointed out with regard to this, so good luck attacking them all.

Further, you've repeatedly posted work by known radical Marxists such as Lewontin.

Prove that's the case in adults, in the environment you speak of, in the context you speak of. Your sources thus far rely on studies done on small children approximately the age of five and an odd comparison conflating social shunning with watering plants in a box.

Except in your sources, apparently.

It's funny that in a post addressed to ME, you're speaking of me in the third person as if making a speech on a podium to a wider audience. You normally post scripts at people?

"I haven't refuted this research" -- Again you're acting as if I were defending some proposition I was never discussing from a group of people I've never read while you continue to act as if I am while only partly addressing the real issue I was discussing because you're far more interested in attacking people I wasn't discussing but trying to drag me into it as if I were discussing it. Good grief.

Your basic premise that white people have taken racist actions which depresses the group IQ of black people is entirely unsubstantiated, mythological, and smacks of anti-white racism. There is zero credible science to make this claim. This claim is so severely bad it's akin to the Hitlerian "International Jew" conspiracy theory or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax.

Since both Taxonomy and I are both posting with regard to the topic of the thread - IQ - there is no legitimate cause to state that either of us should be blocked from anything.

 

Yeah when you insist I "need to refute" racial works I've never read.

Thanks for illustrating that.

 

According to Google Scholar, Joseph Graves has only been cited 2,123 times.

Ouch.

 

Thank you for proving me 100% CORRECT in all aspects of my post.

Pointing out that the CONTENT of a post is a load of bovine excrement sourced from white supremacist disinformation is NOT an ad hom.

Taking legitimate criticism of the CONTENT of your posts personally is NOT my problem.

Given that there appears to a consistent pattern of PF Rule violations in the content of your posts has effectively disqualified you from any further meaningful interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned. All further responses along these lines will be ignored for derogatory reasons.

Have a nice day!

 

Vapid bandwagon fallacy!

https://www.cmu.edu/nanotechnology-...nters/Nanomedicine/4_A Joseph Graves Bio.pdf

 

And that's bad relative to who exactly? Professional Scientists are judged and appreciated by their achievements and honors not their popularity or fame. You can be widely cited and have a horrible reputation. You can be less well known by the public and have very significant achievements (example consider the popularity of Neil Degrasse Tyson vs. James Watson). Joseph Graves was named a member of the "Sensational Sixty" by the National Science Foundation.

https://aaas.dartmouth.edu/news/dr-joseph-l-graves-lecture

Dr. Joseph L Graves Jr. Curriculum Vitae


I find the attacks on his credibility amusing but they mean nothing when they are coming from sources with no credibility to issue a legitimate criticism. Show me a criticism of Joseph Graves and his work by an actual expert in a related field who has noteworthy academic achievements and honors and has actually presented their criticism in an academic setting on video. I don't know of any recently. You had to go back 17 years for the Rowe book review which wasn't even a valid criticism of his work.

PSEUDOSCIENCE appeals to false authority, to emotion, to sentiment, or to distrust of established fact. A high school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology— though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields! A show business celebrity swears it’s true, so it must be. A physicist says psychic Smoori Mellar couldn’t possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common: “If it makes you feel good, it must be true.” “In your heart, you know it’s right.” “Follow your bliss!” “Use your intuition!” Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies: “There’s plenty of evidence for flying saucers but the government keeps it secret.” They almost always argue from irrelevancies: “Scientists don’t know everything!”— but perhaps we weren’t talking about everything, maybe we were discussing the evidence for the tooth fairy and Santa Claus! - Rory Coker

 

You've previously attacked Rushton in part for not being cited in textbooks as credible scholars would be (even though he is cited in textbooks), and yet Rushton is cited approximately 900% more often in scholarly literature.

Graves has an extraordinarily small number of cites for such a long career. It seems that there are basically zero people in the academic field that agree with purchasers of mass market paperbacks that his work is "groundbreaking."

 

When numbers of cites are used to attack someone and then someone else is posted with far fewer cites, it matters.

In that, I'm actually not the one here that committed "vapid bandwagon fallacy" as you term it.

 

Arguing in labels isn't legitimate criticism by any intelligent measure and it debunks nothing.

 

Jay-

Nobody is arguing "genetic causes of physical trait" here. You are misplacing texts of his emails into a discussion on intelligence.

An email talking about physical traits does not prove that "epigenetic effects" work on human intelligence, specifically multi-generationally in the context for which you're arguing. This is misapplication of the data presented and does not remotely validate a single claim you're making.

Again, you seem to not be reading your own source material very closely.

And on this post over here, you point to "epigenetic effects on behavior." Intelligence is not a "behavior":

Showing that epigenetic effects exist somewhere, somehow is not the discussion nor does it validate the specifics you're arguing. The discussion is not sexual orientation. It is human intelligence. You are posting absolutely zero which validates your view of epigenetic effects on human intelligence, handed down through generations due to social shunning and a couple centuries of forced labor, and how they can cause large group IQ gaps, specifically during years when heritability is at its highest and when environmental impact is at its lowest.

P.S. Does Graves know you're posting his cell number all over the internet?

 

If you read either of his books or the many scientific papers he wrote you would see that epigenetic effects also apply to intelligence. This is common knowledge in the field of quantitative genetics and something he explained to Rushton in their video debate as well as in the article in the opening post of this thread.

Apparently you didn't read the paper or didn't recognize the argument.

The problem is that you don't understand heritability, evolutionary genetics, quantitative genetics, epigenetic effects on phenotypic traits or how environment factors can have an impact on IQ throughout a person's lifetime. I have explained to you over and over why you are wrong and so have others. You just don't get it.

"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

His phone number is listed publicly on the faculty page for the university where he works.

https://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/people/faculty/nanoengineering-faculty/joseph-l-graves-jr-ph-d/

The numbers I posted are probably outdated. There's also a disclosure agreement letting you know that any emails you send to him could be submitted to 3rd parties. I also got permission from him to post emails related to his research.

 

If that were the case, then why didn't you provide these proofs rather than these odd emails which refer to physical traits? You're saying the data is there in the book, but you can't seemingly ever provide it h ere? Is that it? "Common knowledge" is appeal to popularity fallacy. It has no meaning. You've provided zero to support the idea that there are shown epigenetic effects on human intellgence, handed down through generations, caused by social shunning and a couple centuries of forced labor which have caused large group IQ gaps in adults whose IQs are heavily heritable and are minimally impacted by the environment.

Copy/pasting rehashed vague references to my supposed ignorance is not an argument. You've shown zero epigenetic arguments that apply to human intelligence let alone in the context for which you claim,

And why in God's green earth are you aruging that I know nothing about "phenotypic traits"? I've taken several semesters of college biology. You don't seem to know what phenotype is. It's not even in the discussion. You need to show epigenetic effects on human intelligence, NOT phenotypic traits.

"Phenotype, all the observable characteristics of an organism that result from the interaction of its genotype (total genetic inheritance) with the environment. Examples of observable characteristics include behaviour, biochemical properties, colour, shape, and size." -- Britannica

You don't seem to have any familiarity at all with freshman-level college biology.

This refers back to Graves' email falsely reporting 50/50 environmental/genetic input into IQ across the board in human beings. This is false.

You've repeated this before and again you leave out the fallacious foundational claim by Graves that,

Graves specifically states that an assumption of 50/50 is what make environmental conditions relevant. Since that's not the case, environmental conditions are NOT remotely that relevant in adulthood, as a multitude of studies have proven.

Unless you can show that all those decades of data are wrong and somehow humans walk around with a general 50/50 environmental susceptibility, absolutely nothing Graves has stated is of note.

NADA.

 

I clearly showed you that epigenetic effects on intelligence are addressed in the paper which you completely ignored.

What grade did you get in your Biology class? Intelligence is a phenotypic trait! Your own quote clearly states that phenotypes are observable characteristics that result from genotype and lists behavior as one of these observable traits. You can observe intelligence. Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe a scholar with a Phd in Biology knows more than you do on this subject? If you can't even get basic facts like this straight how can you expect anyone to believe you have credibility to speak on this 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

PSEUDOSCIENCE appeals to false authority, to emotion, to sentiment, or to distrust of established fact. A high school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and mythology— though his claims are inconsistent with everything known in all four fields! A show business celebrity swears it’s true, so it must be. A physicist says psychic Smoori Mellar couldn’t possibly have fooled him with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common: “If it makes you feel good, it must be true.” “In your heart, you know it’s right.” “Follow your bliss!” “Use your intuition!” Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies: “There’s plenty of evidence for flying saucers but the government keeps it secret.” They almost always argue from irrelevancies: “Scientists don’t know everything!”— but perhaps we weren’t talking about everything, maybe we were discussing the evidence for the tooth fairy and Santa Claus! - Rory Coker

You have no idea what you are talking about. Another poster showed you that nutritional deficits in childhood (food availability and nutrition quality) can have lasting impacts on behavior and intelligence into adulthood. Graves statement was in reference to the heritability of intelligence which was about 0.50. That means that whether or not it is 0.20 or 0.40 or .50 or .80 or 0.90 doesn't matter. That's just an estimate. The real point is that differences in environmental conditions can have lasting impacts on IQ and there are many, many variables. To point out how absurd your claim is imagine if someone got hit in the head and suffered severe brain damage. Their ability to function after brain injury would have nothing to do with their genes. You can't measure for example the psychological effects of depression or anxiety on a person who has been traumatized by a traumatic event and how that affects their behavior. Someone could take an IQ test or standardized test and do very poorly because they didn't get enough sleep the previous day or didn't eat breakfast.

These are not excuses, these are real environmental factors that impact people everyday and to different degrees depending on their life experiences which have NOTHING to do with genetic differences. If you don't understand the research then you just don't understand it which is fine. Not everyone can debate a subject like this and understand science. But it was explained to you and telling me I didn't properly defend my position is false.

http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html

Joseph Graves, an African-American evolutionary biologist at Arizona State University-West in Tempe, notes that most people and researchers who try to establish correlations between various natural abilities and skin color are not geneticists.

These people don't know evolutionary genetics. They talk about interesting issues in race and biology. And since, I think, there are no real races, I wonder what these issues are. It makes me angry that I have to take time from my research (on the genetics of aging) to argue about something that shouldn't even need to be discussed (Blum).

 

You've showed nothing regarding epigenetic effects on intelligence. You discussed epigenetic effects on other traits and tried to extend that to intelligence without a supporting body of scientific literature.

Since Graves can't get the basic lifetime heritability of intelligence right, how is it that he has a right to speak on the subject? If he knows more, then why did he make such an inaccurate claim and then base his entire "environment needs to be equal with this much environmental influence" argument when in fact environmental influence on late adolescence into late adulthood isn't that much at all?

I've already noted that nutritional deficits have to be severe and longterm to affect IQ in ways you're discussing. You're talking about population-level effects here. Such a thing doesn't exist in the United States or any developed country. We have nutrition programs, food stamps, and medicaid for poor children. There is zero proof that the diet of any group in the United States has caused their collective IQ to drop. None. The last time we had widespread hunger in the US was during the Dust Bowl when people were eating field rabbits and boiled tumbleweeds.

Our people are over-nourished. Fat. I have seen no emaciated-looking people in the United States that were not either severe alcoholics, drug addicts, or terminally ill.

Further, if a parent feeds their kid pork skins and value packs, that's a parenting issue.

This is nonsense. He cited .50 and said "with this much environmental influence" and went from there assuming a basis of .50 for an entire declaration of the need to equalize environment due to the assumption of such high heritability. His entire statement, as I have already said several times, was based on a false high heritability of intelligence and is accordingly inaccurate. Nothing based on that level of assumed heritability is scientifically sound.

Obviously, in assuming that much environmental influence one could reasonably point to a myriad of things and conclude that the only way to sift through all of that environmental influence would be to have equal environment across the board. BUT since that's not the case and adult environmental influence is as low as .10 in developed societies, such things aren't relevant to the discussion. SO yet again Graves was either clueless or he intentionally mis-stated the data for reasons of advantage.

High heritability necessarily means less environmental influence on IQ, so it matters, and very much so. You don't have high heritability while retaining high environmental influence. As one increases, the other necessarily decreases.

Too vague as to render itself worthless. Since adults in developed countries have minimal environmental impact on their IQ, it would take something quite substantial to effect it, and as I've also said before, merely citing some environmental influence somewhere along the line does not validate the specific types of environmental influences you are citing as causes of the black/white IQ gap, namely social shunning and a couple hundred years of slavery especially in age groups that are known to have minimal environmental influence on their intelligences. You seem to think that pointing to any environmental influence anywhere from anything means that the things you think are the cause are proven so by extension. It has never been shown that any two given environmental factors impact equally anywhere, for any reason, let alone so predictably. It could be that one factor has effect and another doesn't, or that neither have an effect. Then there's the matter that you keep citing papers on high heritability levels in approximately three year olds and conflating that to assume they would likewise have a similar effect on a 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 year old. This is false.

This is all based on your personal opinion and not any accumulated literature on environmental impact on IQ, let alone on adult IQ when environmental influences are at a minimum due to strong heritability from late-teens through late adulthood. This is a longstanding hole in your argument.

And such as with this example. You have shown nothing to tie-in a traumatic brain injury with social shunning and forced servitude. This is a comparison which you think fits but there exists no body of evidence to prove that something like a physical brain injury from being struck violently on the head can be caused in a person who has suffered discrimination in employment. There is absolutely nothing to connect the two. Zero, let alone multi-generationally.

Yep, and? Unless you think there's a grand 100 year-long conspiracy to disrupt the sleep and empty the refrigerators and cupboards of black folks on the eve of an IQ test, this is absolutely and completely irrelevant.

So yeah, key elements to your position continue to be missing. You seem to be digging around in general for any variable you think could impact an IQ test without tying it in to see if it's even viable when applied to a population of tens of millions.

I've always said you should do something about your temper. All of this would be avoided if you had a solid body of literature that specifically validates your positions. No body of literature shows that there is a high impact of environment on adult IQ in Western countries (in other words, more peaceful ones without prolonged starvation due to war or famine), no literature shows that social shunning and forced servitude have lowered the IQs of an entire demographic of tens of millions of people, no literature shows that although being a quite prosperous population in comparison to world income levels, an entire demographic of tens of millions of people have lowered IQs because their neighbors of another demographic have on average more material goods.

These are suppositions that you've tried to paste together based on often misfitted, fragmented evidence.

Since you clearly cannot defend the proposition that discrimination, slavery, and relative lack of higher income compared to whites has caused black IQ to depress approximately 15 points, maybe you should stop making the claims?

 

Yes, I did. I've been making that argument the whole time. The fact that it went over your head is not my fault.

No Empress, the heritability of intelligence is not fixed and different sources have come to different results. Stop trying to claim a fixed heritability of adult IQ estimate on to Joseph Graves because that is NOT what he is talking about and he never said such a thing. You are misinterpreting and distorting Graves' comments and you are the one who has shown that you did not know that intelligence is a phenotypic trait.

No kidding. I clearly listed parenting as one of the many environmental variables that have an effect on IQ.

I never once said that group differences in IQ were solely caused by racial discrimination. Never. What you want to do is pretend that my argument about environmental differences is solely based on racial discrimination and use that to say that I am blaming White people for Blacks having lower average IQs. I'm not saying that. I never said that. Racial discrimination is only one factor that impacts IQ and there are many, many more. There doesn't need to be a direct tie to racial discrimination. If little Johnny gets hit in the head by a baseball during practice for his little league baseball team and it causes brain damage that effects his IQ we don't need to find a link to racial discrimination to say that an environmental factor (accidental head injury) lowered his intelligence. This is one of the worst arguments and outright distortions I have encountered in a debate on this subject.

There are environmental factors that can and do have an effect on intelligence that can lower a group's AVERAGE IQ. So if we are looking at the average IQ of African-Americans and taking samples from Blacks of all income levels it will come as no surprise that Blacks living in the ghetto will drag down the national average.

Studies which I have cited many, many times have shown that when you control for environmental variables the IQ gaps are significantly reduced or virtually eliminated:







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).





Predictably you will say that the IQ data is on child IQ but again that doesn't matter. Environmental effects on IQ can last a lifetime and there are many environmental variables that can have an effect on IQ in complex ways.

"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

You can disagree with me but do not distort my position to fit your argument and then pass that off as a rebuttal to my argument.

 

Note - This was too long and I had to split it into two parts

PART I

That's not the case. As I said, you've pointed to a lesbian twin and a quotation by Graves discussing physical traits.

I've never said it was "fixed." What you're trying to claim is that environment can influence adult IQ as much as childhood IQ, specifically in developed societies where it's not the case outside of extreme circumstances such as prolonged, severe malnutrition. There are no such conditions which apply to an entire population of tens of millions of people in any advanced society.

Graves' claim was specifically an argument based on a false 50/50 premise as he stated himself, and noted that environment must as a result of that premise be equal for a prolonged period of time to flesh anything out. Since the 50/50 premise is entirely and wholly false, everything on comments from Graves based on that false premise is bogus, period. There is no rationalizing it away and no work-around. He made a false assumption of lifetime heritability and bombed the question, badly.

Multiple studies listed below specifically point to that Wilson Effects must be taken into consideration on calculations regarding human IQ.

Yep, so why invoke sleepiness or no breakfast as if that were a special circumstance which only black people faced in taking IQ tests, as if it was a factor in why blacks score lower than whites?

In order for your environmental thesis to work, you'd have to show that specific environmental factors unique to a lower average IQ group not only affect intelligence at all ages within them, but are prolifically present-enough to depress the collective IQ of tens of millions of people on a multi-generational level. You haven't showed environmental factors impacting IQ on anyone over about the age of five, you have not showed that specific challenges blacks have historically faced impact IQ let alone on a life-long level, you have not shown that heritability of IQ is changed in only blacks due to the special environmental factors you point to which is to say that the scientific consensus on the Wilson Effect would have to magically be suspended and thrown out of the window for black people as a special case and black people would have to be the only group whose "adult IQ is caused by childhood SES."

I didn't say you did.

I've not pretended anything. In essence, as your main factors are all externalities attributed to white-caused historical conditions.

Of course there does, as you cannot assume that one thing - physical brain injury - is comparable to "discrimination" sans studies that specifically show that the act of discrimination lowers IQ in any age group. Outside of that is merely speculative and assumption. As Turdheimer stated, childhood beatings aren't having an impact on IQ of the type that you are asserting have come from discrimination/Jim Crow/slavery. No, discrimination does not equal physically damaging a human brain with a blunt instrument.

Turdheimer said childhood beatings didn't lower IQ, remember?

With such loose criteria, one could say that watching scary movies lowers IQ in spite of that no studies exist that are remotely indicative that scary movies actually lower IQ, let alone on a widespread basis, or that scary movies cause adult IQ, but we'll go ahead and assert it anyhoo because getting knocked on the head and sustaining a physical brain injury can lower IQ.

Not one of which exists as a body of scientific literature the main three reasons you point to: Lower average SES, social shunning, slavery or anything relating to the main aspects of the historical black experience in America. In the place of specific studies which validate this thesis as a proven factor in collective IQ at any age, let alone all of them, you've presented vague arguments about how environment can impact in general and then specifically invoking impacts on small children and not teens or adults on things as vague as "SES" with calculations that do not take the Wilson Effect into consideration (Flynn and Dickens, refer to Loehlin 2002), papers that ignore the existence of the longitudinal washout, poor methodology writ large on the part of Nisbutt (per Lee, 2009), references by Graves regarding epigenetics regarding physical characteristics instead of intelligence, a documentary about a lesbian to try to make a claim about epigenetics and intelligence, watered plants which are supposed to represent "discrimination" or something, and rats in boxes which are apparently supposed to be mentally similar to black people.

The evidences you offer regarding intelligence continue to frequently be square pegs and only applicable to a small population of people - namely small children - which you are casting as valid for one specific demographic of all ages without presenting studies that show high impact of SES or similar environmental circumstances on people of all ages but keep insisting that showing environmental influence on a five year old is good enough somehow when a multitude of scholars keep saying otherwise.

On top of all of this, the Turdheimer cite regarding low heritabilty in children due to SES is irrelevant as it is not replicating:

Heritability does not see poverty and run away. The below study included the Turdheimer paper in question -

If that isn't a polite way of saying "Eric Turdheimer, you're full of ****," I don't know what is.

And there's yet more --

The question is why you keep citing this high-environmental influence in childhood by SES in spite of all of this data otherwise.

And no there's no such thing as having high genetic influence and high environmental influence at the same time. There is not such a thing as "high SES impact throughout the lifespan" or the weird claim of "childhood SES causes adult IQ." Note in all literature, it's an either/or proposition.

Genetic influence up/environment down, either/or.

 

PART II

Circular reasoning definition and examples:

In informal logic, circular reasoning is an argument that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove. Fallacies closely related to circular reasoning include begging the question and petitio principii.

"The fallacy of the petitio principii," says Madsen Pirie, "lies in its dependence on the unestablished conclusion. Its conclusion is used, albeit often in a disguised form, in the premises which support it" (How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, 2015). -- Richard Nordquist


Examples and Observations

• "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability." (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

Studies you mean on children about the age of three or five at the latest, before they age and there is greater genetic influence on IQ and lessening environmental influence, and before the longitudinal washout erases those transient gains mentioned by Nisbett in a small number of studies in his little book, based on non-replicating studies from a few specific people.

If age and heritability didn't matter as you said, these data would show up in any and all age groups in studies, and they are not which is why ALL of your sources rely on data from young children.

In other words, this is completely useless.

Regarding the Flynn and Dickens(2006) IQ table which you keep posting,

What is this? Another thing where you're arguing at an audience trying to debunk claims I never made? "Claim #3" is not something I've ever said. Can you do a better job copy-pasting in the future?

You need to be accurate and state the studies were on small children and the data did not apply to adults, rather than this generalized reference that makes it look like the data was with regard to populations of all ages.

Five year olds and new research mentioned above has demolished this. I've already stated what happens with regard to adjustments in that age group for SES.

In other words, like Graves, they ignored the Wilson Effect.

Why? The Wilson Effect kicks in.

It is thus scientifically implausible to claim that an environmental condition which does not show impact from approximately age five onward, let alone to a large degree, is a legitimate explanation for large average IQ group gaps across all ages.

Wilson Effect, longitudinal washout, non-replicating studies as mentioned above.

It does matter which is why all your data comes from studies on small children. These environmental impacts aren't showing up at older ages.

As far as to the last three paragraphs, this seems to be standard-issue closing material for which I've answered before but you keep re-posting as if for consumption by a greater audience.

Again, Graves' quotes are based on a false statement of high environmental impact on intelligence - 50/50 - since this figure does not apply beyond early childhood, anything he says from that premise is false and not relevant.

 

IQ is environmental, not genetic. The Chinese have always known this. Why Westerners needed to think otherwise, is the great mystery.

 

And furthermore, to argue that "childhood SES causes adult IQ" would mean that in today's environment of marked black socioeconomic gains in which the correlation between single parenthood and poverty is widely known, the single largest causative factor in SES-related IQ depression would be due to single black parenting.

As Richard Nisbutt said in his book Intelligence and How to Get It : Why School and Cultures Count,

"The unwed mother rate is 72 percent for blacks, compared to 24 percent for whites. This statistic represents a host of problems for black children, not the least of which is that the poverty rate for single-parent homes is far higher than it is for two-parent homes. Perhaps equally important is the fact that such homes have one adult, and the fewer adults there are, the less stimulating is the environment." - page 101

and

"A huge spurt in economic conditions came in the 1960s and 1970s... By 1970, black families with a husband and wife who both worked made almost as much money as comparable white families." - page 109

If one is going to argue that SES depresses IQs today among blacks, then they're basically arguing it's self-inflicted.

Slavery cannot be blamed for high black out of wedlock birth rates as since the 1960s, out of wedlock birthrates for all races in the US have sharply increased. Today's white out of wedlock birthrate was the black out of wedlock birthrate in the 1960s.

 

Yeah I think I'll defer to you and ignore decades of international studies. Thanks.

 

This is not surprising given how much academic interest there is in psychology vs. the genetics of aging, laboratory experiments on fruit flies and biological theories concerning race. The study of the mind is far more exciting and interesting to a lot of people which why their textbooks are constantly being updated. As Graves and Suzuki noted in their debates with Rushton, geneticists have known that his arguments were invalid for decades. Psychology attracts a lot of crackpots with wacko theories which Suzuki also pointed out in his debate with Rushton.

As I said though, you can be widely cited and have a horrible reputation. Rushton has been heavily criticized by experts in various fields for his racial theories. His reputation as a credible researcher was tarnished once he was exposed as a Pioneer Fund Grantee and his research became the laughing stock of the auditorium at the University of Western Ontario where he was investigated for hate speech and twice reprimanded by his school for unethical research practices.

An objective look at Rushton's research shows why he had such a bad reputation:

By comparison I know of know major controversies concerning the research of Graves. He has many honors, appointments and fellowships as well as appearances in documentaries, TV specials and mainstream news networks such as CNN. You can't say that he is afraid to defend his research or challenge the theories of others. He challenged Rushton in an academic setting, got Vincent Sarich's book rejected by a publisher, gave an interview with Anderson Cooper in response to the James Watson controversy on National TV and got Charles Murray to back out of a debate with him (he made numerous excuses not to hold a debate with Graves).

There's more to earning credibility and respect than the number of academic citations.

What you want is a biologist or geneticist with more respect and recognition in the scientific community who has directly challenged Graves.

That is not true. I posted the conclusions of the article that is the topic of the thread which addresses epigenetic effects on intelligence (a phenotypic trait). If you did not read the article that is your fault not mine.

No, I don't Empress. I do not have to defend your distortions of my position. You are using the same tactics as Rushton to try to win the argument by misrepresenting your opponent's argument, ignoring evidence that supports their position and demanding that your opponent prove X, Y and Z to satisfy your distorted interpretation of their argument.

My argument is simply this: Measurable average IQ differentials between socially-defined racial groups do not have a genetic basis. Intelligence is a phenotypic trait. In order to identify the cause of measured differences in a phenotypic trait exhibited by different genotypes those genotypes have to be reared in the same environment. You can have populations that are equal in genetic potential but the cause of differences in their phenotypic traits be 100% caused by environmental differences between the groups ((ex. barrel vs. home-reared boys).

Since there is no equivalence of environments between racially stratified societies or between nations there is no credible research program that can be produced that could test the hypothesis that there is a genetic component to observed average IQ differentials. The Genetic Hypothesis is invalidated by our knowledge of gene x environment interaction and population genetic theory. The research I have presented in past discussions supports this fact. Recent Genome-Wide Association studies support this position, which are discussed in the article in my opening post and the scientific consensus of several prestigious scientific organizations supports this position.

I have of course supported this argument with a lot of research that you have already seen so there is no need to copy-paste it again.

There's no circular reasoning on my end. Your logical fallacies include the Strawman, Burden of Proof Shifting, Appeal to False Authority, Argument from Ignorance and Argument by Repetition.

The last one is the most significant as this debate could go on and on so long as you continue to distort my position.

Argument by Repetition

Description: Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence.

Logical Form:

X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true. X is true... etc.

• PSEUDOSCIENCE appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology, while simultaneously denying their validity. Thus, a procedurally invalid experiment which seems to show that astrology works is advanced by the pseudoscientist as “proof” that astrology is correct, while he simultaneously completely ignores any number of procedurally sound experiments that show it does not work in any way or sense. The fact that someone got away with simple magic tricks in one scientific lab is “proof” that he is a psychic superman, while the fact that he was caught doing his tricks in several other labs is ignored. One ESP experiment where the researchers can be shown conclusively to have simply fabricated all their positive results is invariably referenced as valid and convincing, whilst the many dozens of other ESP studies that gave chance results are left unmentioned.
  
  A more general example of this fallacy is often called “cherry picking.” There are many "scientific studies" being published all the time, and they vary widely in reliability and methodology. Thus, you can easily find at least one study somewhere that "proves" that drinking 6 or more cups of coffee a day reduces the chance of a heart attack by 60%, that using a mobile phone more than 2 hours a day reduces the chance of developing Alzheimer's Disease by 60%, that eating a pound of dark chocolate per day reduces your chance of ovarian cancer by 60%, that chewing a plug of tobacco at least once per week reduces the incidence of dental caries by 60%... or whatever else you want!
  
  [Crackpot critics of science generally misuse the “cherry-picking” term. Basically they seem to think that sorting out the bad data and tossing it away consists of cherry picking, and leads to all well-established scientific results being questionable. What a real cherry-picker does is pick out only bad data and ignore all the rest. And in fact the real cherry-picker ignores most of the bad data too, only pointing to the one or two goofy examples that he thinks offer support to his favorite crazy idea.] - Rory Coker
  

The quote above is the real topic of the thread. The research and conclusions of the article in the opening post has not been addressed and attacking distortions of an argument does not refute a person's argument.

 

So in other words, when you point to a lack of cites for a person you hate, it's because they suck, but if a person you like has far fewer cites, it's ok.

This is more genetic fallacy and ideological alarm-bell ringing. Pavlovian bell rings aside, you are not separating work from outside his expertise with work within. That's not an accident.

Invoking the "Pioneer fund" Pavlovian alarm-bell every few posts isn't an argument but a genetic fallacy. It's intended to be an ideological sound-all to warn people against taking a person seriously, without addressing the content of their work on its merit. This is a means of attacking a person outside addressing specific works of that person and thus does not serve to diminish that person's work.

Nobody here is citing Rushton outside of his field of expertise, yet you continue to try to diminish him in toto by pasting passages of people attacking him for work outside of his expertise.

Try to keep that in mind next time you try to claim someone has no credibility due to their not meeting a subjective level of cites. I'm not the one that started that.

It is - you cited it. Including a YouTube video of a lesbian twin. A specific Graves quotation included discussion of a physical phenotypic trait.

I've distorted nothing. You've repeatedly taken studies that regard three and five year olds and have on a multitutde of occasions referred to them as representative of populations as a whole without mentioning these studies were narrow in age range, as if they applied to groups in general and showed that in general all these environmental impacts are happening. That my friend is misrepresentation.

And frankly, you've repeatedly demanded I defend positions I have never taken so don't complain that I demand you answer something. I am simply stating a basic requirement to prove a thing as a scientific fact and it has nothing to do with my making any demands of you.

This is not an accurate statement of your argument. You have specifically claimed that "childhood SES causes adult IQ," that "discrimination, poverty, and slavery" have caused large IQ gaps between groups and that studies limited to three and five year olds (which you always quote but continuously fail to mention are limited to three and five year olds) prove that IQ inequality is caused by environmental differences specific to the American black experience which will go away with some equalizing process, per the highly-contested and frankly out of date works of a couple sources.

My debate with you has always been limited to a number of assertions you've made regarding claims that environment explains large IQ differences specifically citing works that ignore the high heritability of adult IQ, which ignores the longitudinal washout of any early childhood IQ gains, which ignores the decreasing impact of SES on humans into teen years and adulthood, and NONE of which has ever made a claim that "childhood SES causes adult IQ," none of which show that black average IQ has been specifically lowered by environmental influences by such as historical slavery, Jim Crow, lower SES compared to whites, and "discrimination" in general.

Repeated posting of studies about three and five year olds and acting as if they're representative of a wide range of ages without mentioning longitudinal washout proves none of these things whatsoever and is a continued mis-statement of the actual data that is the backbone of that argument.

Again, this is an unattributed quote by Graves which is based on a false claim of 50/50 environmental heritability which traces back to three and five year olds misplaced as being representative of populations of humans across all age groups in general, it holds no water.

You can't continue to make sweeping claims like this while citing a piece of data only relevant to a population of three year old human beings. Adult heritability is much higher and you know it.

Studies on three and five year olds are not representative of anyone other than three and five year olds. Nobody here is discussing IQ differences between three and five year olds.

No burden of proof shifting. I'm stating you need to defend your thesis that specific environmental impacts are affecting blacks across all age groups, multigenerationally, per your own claims. That burden of proof is yours by default because the argument is yours. Thus far it's false equivalences of lesbians and physical traits and repeated references to heritability ranges of three year olds and corresponding studies of three year olds with a topping of non-replicating data. That you keep having to cite data from toddlers shows how shaky your environmental thesis is and how much environmental influences vanishes over time. There are no studies in older populations that reflect an environmental input of the type Graves, Nisbutt, Turdheimer et al are speaking of. If they had a legitimate argument on that, the data would be there in people of all ages. It is not.

Why? Adult IQ is highly genetic, period.

 

Firstly, Intelligence Quotient is a mostly arbitrary and inaccurate evaluation of what constitutes general intellect in the first place.
Secondly, the massive variation within "Races" indicate genetics cannot be in play.
Thirdly, it is extremely obvious that social/environmental/cultural contributions are the primary drivers of human mental abilities.
and finally...using the color of skin or facial features to designate the qualities of any human is folly.