Ironic coming from someone who just relied upon a Reddit BLOGGER calling themselves "penguin soccer"! Is that the name you use on Reddit?
Actually, Reddit is an excellent board and science board, and it works on merit. Your CT was so outlandish/Esoteric/ridiculous, (unlike the more 100% wrong but more common creationism) there was no other MSM outlet I could find quickly to refute it. There may be others, but No one (including YOU.. at least NOW) is disputing your posting was a pile of screaming, steaming, BS, that no one with any historical background would believe. Tho one poster with similar politics as yours, also didn't notice, and didn't say anything about how obviously Outrageous it was. And certainly Reddit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reddit) is much better than the CRACKPOT Conspiracy website you used. ie, Here's some more Insanity from Your source! https://www.ancient-origins.net/new...kage-discovered-science-museum-archive-009588 https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-mysterious-phenomena/rake-canadian-0010503 https://www.ancient-origins.net/new...ientists-say-no-not-everyone-convinced-009788 `
Actually this is My thread topic and is filled with my On Topic sources and debate. When I see your intentionally silly/juvenile posts filled with Youtubes from never never land, oft THREE to FIVE in a single posting, I, and others do not even read them. I know you think they (and other Multimedia Baiting JPG extravaganzas) are attention grabbing, but they are too juvenile for response. They are really oft more used as Eye-catching distractions/previous-post-buriers, not discussion. No one else serious debates by youtube, or Litters/distracts/or unwittingly destroys their posts' credibility with them. No one else here, or elsewhere for that matter, puts up 3-5 you tubes, oft some of long length, (and oft with yet more pictures) and says "refute this." Sometimes even Two consecutive posts/20 scrolling feet in a row which stops/intentionally eclipses/bludgeons any debate. ie I would invite Everyone here to see YOUR #104 on the last page. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ding-75-genetic.472120/page-6#post-1069671469 Will smith? Supernatural Dean"? or YOUR #116 http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ding-75-genetic.472120/page-6#post-1069676508 for what is really Trolling/Exhibitionism/graffiti, not serious entries. Both With FIVE Youtubes/many mere flames. The latter (actually Both) look exceptionally cartoonish with several on homosexuality? (!) But I certainly didn't watch them either. Nor would anyone else. `
This is a message board on the internet. Humor is allowed. What really matters is that I made on-topic points that you did not respond to. Why should anyone take you seriously when you ignore scientific rebuttals, insult others and play all kinds of juvenile games yourself? You don't exactly have a lot of defenders so who are these "anyone else?" My posts got several likes by posters who actually read and understood the points I was making. I used many examples to support my argument as well as educational videos and pictures. The silliness with Dean Winchester pulling his pants down was in response to silly arguments of your own (Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule). Instead of complaining about debate style (several posters don't like your own posting style) focus on the content and stop making excuses for ignoring evidence.
Shall we go and look at the homepage for Reddit? https://www.reddit.com/ It goes downhill from there so your "endorsement" of Reddit as a "credible source" says volumes!
You seem very good at making judgement on people despite a lack of evidence. You do not know me except for a few posts I have made anonymously on a Internet forum, yet you believe that you know my interests and my motivations. So let me fill in the gaps in your knowledge of me. I come on this forum to debate, like most people on this forum. I have a broad range of interests and a few favorites. My time is finite, so I have to allocate my time accordingly. So, in order for me to have maximum enjoyment using the least amount of time, I like to check out who I am debating with before committing to debating a topic as research heavy as genetics. So I ask a few questions, push a few buttons to see how they react, and see if they will give me an honest, logical response, or if they merely get overly emotional, resort to logical fallacies and start lining up personal attacks. If they give me honest, logical responses, then I will debate them. If not, they I send of a few parting shots and say goodbye. So take a look at your responses to my posts and ask yourself, which group do you believe you are in?
Intelligence inheritability (sic)? No --- we're discussing the heritability of intelligence. We already know intelligence is inheritable. Who are you invoking this anecdote against?! Personally, I can't wait until you post another irrelevant study to "prove" that "childhood SES causes adult IQ." How about a study of the mating habits of hamsters with a follow up of accusing the person that points out the study you're invoking actually has nothing to do with childhood SES causing IQ of "demeaning our gerbils"?
After the Bell Curve furor of late 1994, the APA/America Psychological Association did a study to try and resolve the issue of the Black-White IQ Gap. They said it was about 1 Standard Deviation/15 points. (and it Still is) And they said in that 1996 Report there was a Gap, and it was "Not Socioeconomic" and "Not test Bias." Summary of that report: https://www.intelltheory.com/apa96.shtml ""..The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one Standard Deviation, although it may be diminishing) does NOT result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, NOR does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.""": Which doesn't leave much except Genetic, but in 1996 was not known at all, and they rightly said there was no evidence it was. Significant Genetic markers for IQ are just coming into play, with hundreds being found for this complex trait. (Plomin et al) And it's now part of a few commercial personal DNA test components. `
Well that makes sense in terms of studies. I see nothing showing a race-environment interaction that would change heritability levels of varying ethnic groups. Various longevity studies have people of the mix of American society in it, and the figures are representative of these people in general. More severe environmental issues would be required to impact IQ as I have not only seen in literature but was also taught in college. In the early 20th century, we had somewhat common issues with underweight children and incidences of childhood rickets during and shortly after the Dust Bowl and Great Depression. No such things happen in modern society outside of individual children suffering horrible home abuses or parental neglect such as we saw the Islamist in New Mexico who the children said was trying to train them as mass shooters, but these cases are individual exceptions and not a societal trend.
The American Academy of Pediatricians disagrees with you about the benefits of reading to small children: https://www.raisesmartkid.com/all-ages/1-articles/14-the-benefits-of-reading-to-your-child. The American Psychological Association also acknowledges the impact that reading to infants and small children has in building literacy skills: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/10/books.aspx Wouldn't you expect these skills to aid performance on verbal reasoning sections of IQ and achievement tests? I'm talking about stimulating brain activity in babies and children as part of their development. "For a person to develop certain intellectual abilities, they need to be provided with the appropriate environmental stimuli during childhood, before the critical period for adapting their neuronal connections ends." That quote is from this article that highlights many environmental factors that affect IQ scores. http://iqandenvironment.blogspot.com/2008/05/list-of-environmental-factors-that.html. Reading and other activities can provide this stimuli. With that said, intelligence is a subjective subject. Building literacy skills and instilling a love of academic pursuits is more important than a snapshot of a performance on a test, although the former can affect the latter. You support racist and oppressive beliefs to prove that racism and oppression hasn't been a plague on the African-American community? Why don't you just acknowledge that it has had an impact but refuse to be held personally responsible for actions that you did not commit. There is middle ground between extremes.
I never said there were no benefits to reading to kids, what I said was that as Eric Turdheimer said, such things won't raise children's IQs. Context matters. They actually have types of cognitive ability tests even for infants. "To develop" means that one already possess them and merely an optimal environment allows them full expression. You have no business attempting to politically demonize people who have posted dozens of scientific sources in this subsection regarding the subject because you don't like what the person said. It's also a cheap attempt at defeating a science-based argument by character assassination. The existence of racism alone in US history does not prove that there is a race-environment interaction which has collectively lowered the IQs of tens of millions of people. Posting rote talking points with Blogspot posts and having ideological meltdowns isn't going to cut it. Have a nice evening.
Indeed, they are attempting to prove a fallacy that has been successfully refuted for centuries. Here's an interesting article that also contradicts the pseudoscience: http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
There's no meltdown here. I'm addressing your stated motive for posting these articles and your loaded question to me. Do you remember the reason that you gave and the question that you asked? Your rationale for posting the articles was not scientific. You're posting articles to bolster an agenda. Some might call that political. I'm sure they do have tests for infants but most don't take them. In my school system, these tests are administered in second grade and by that time some of the benefits that are described in the articles have already had an opportunity to take effect. One of the articles that I posted does suggest that activities like reading which stimulate the brain have an effect on IQ. The belief that one group is inherently superior to another group is a dictionary definition of racism. That's an objective fact. How do you know that the ability isn't there with the propensity for development? Scientific studies have not proven innate race based intellectual superiority in spite of centuries of attempts by pseudoscientists. There are studies about the socioeconomic effects of racism that can affect scores. There are studies on stereotype threat, nutrition, quality of schools, wealth, pollution, etc. These have impact, along with personal motivation, genetics, personality and other factors.
Actually, this is a quite understandable Fallacy. Is intelligence being enhanced by reading to children.. or do more intelligent people (who read more and read to kids more) pass down their genes to those children whether or not they read to them? Someone did a study/experiment to find out which was the case. Parenting Style Probably Does Not Raise IQ in Children By Rick Nauert PhD https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/...ably-does-not-raise-iq-in-children/76792.html Source: Florida State University .
Puerile ad homs duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons since they violate civil discourse requirements.
Because he cited a crackpot blogger called "penguin soccer 2" on Reddit. Why don't you ask him where he got his own conspiratorial "tens of millions" bovine excrement from? Failure to do so would fall under the definition of hypocrisy.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE! https://www.britannica.com/science/cognitive-dissonance The the APA/America Psychological Association clearly STIPULATES that there is NO GENETIC BASIS! The OP is REJECTING and attempting to EXPLAIN AWAY the factual findings of the study. What makes it glaringly obvious that this can only be cognitive dissonance is because there is a FAILURE to even ATTEMPT to provide any shred of credible substantiation for the "explaining away". And let's take a closer look at what the the APA/America Psychological Association study actually DID determine in the full CONTEXT of the study itself. https://www.intelltheory.com/apa96.shtml#questions Note that the OP chose to SELECTIVELY quote ONLY #6 above while REJECTING all of the other aspects of the study. The definition of Cognitive Dissonance is being demonstrated throughout this thread but this was perhaps the most striking example to date.
1. Number 6 was the ESSENCE and the ESSENCE of our Debate "Socioeconomic" or not. It was Not test bias and it was Not Socioeconomic. 2. AGAIN, since you Warped my answer. OF COURSE in 1996 there was No evidence for genetic, and I said so and AGREED with them. OF COURSE as well, there report didn't leave room for much else. 3. Again My Last: - - - - - - - - Summary of that report: https://www.intelltheory.com/apa96.shtml ""..The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one Standard Deviation, although it may be diminishing) does NOT result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, NOR does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.""" Which doesn't leave much except Genetic, but in 1996 was Not known at all, and they RIGHTLY said there was No evidence it was. Significant Genetic markers for IQ are JUST COMING INTO PLAY, with hundreds being found for this complex trait. (Plomin et al) And it's now part of a few commercial personal DNA test components. - - - - - - - - - - 4. And note I Cite real/the best sources, while YOU (Dissonantly) CITE Laughable Conspiracy website "ancient-origins" in the name of WILD AFRO-centrist Baloney. `
And what would expect teachers to say? Having ushered five kids through school,( one still currently in 8th grade), I have yet to see a teacher/school admin say anything other than that. Because what they are going to say? That a poor result might be the fault of ineffectual teaching, or a bad school environment? Please! Call any school you please and ask them if they have any flaws in staff or administration what-so-ever and see what they say. I know for a fact, through my own children, siblings and extended family, aptitude for certain academic subjects is most certainly genetic. You can hinder, or enhance what nature provided, but you can't "teach" or "parent" someone to become a Monet or a Mozart who isn't inherently gifted in those areas. Same for Math and reading ect...
Regurgitating something that was just DEBUNKED does not alter the FACT that it was DEBUNKED! However it does confirm the observation of Cognitive Dissonance!
You didn't "debunk" anything. You Just (as usual) Inaccurately Higlighted MY POST, My Info, MY link. It's [STILL] NOT socioeconomic. That WAS The essence of the debate at the time I responded, and what I responded to. You Lost. `
That's Not "Evidence" of it, or that anyone has it. It's the [PLAGIARIZED] Definition from somewhere. Post ON TOPIC please. `
