Again, you have no clue as to what peer review is. It's a term where scientists review and comment and each other's scientific papers on a scientific basis only - no political labeling or jargon. "Peer review" as a term has nothing to do with anything outside of that context, as I just showed you with an academic source which you ignored entirely. It refers to the scientific peers of other scientists regarding a given peer-reviewed paper. Period. Their reviewing it means the paper is peer-reviewed, and is then accepted by journals that post peer-reviewed scientific literature. You're just really, really confused because you have zero background in the sciences. If you were academically anywhere near Taxonomy, you'd know this.
That is zero response to his citation. The usual giggling emote at the beginning followed by mocking and labels with insistence that he is "debunked" even though you haven't actually responded to the source he just cited.
The APA96 paper doesn't validate the false idea that "childhood SES causes adult IQ." It has been conclusively shown that in Western societies, environmental factors do not have substantial influence on IQ from preteen years on into adulthood where environmental influence is about 10%. That has been proven as fact by a body of scientific studies produced over the last several decades. I have never seen any researcher posit the idea that a 1 SD gap in IQ could be explained by environmental influence in the range of .10. Indeed, that's why every cite presented here regarding heritability of IQ always relies on small children around the ages of three to five - because they have the most environmental impact on their IQ before genetic effects become prominent. If SES or any other environmental impact that we experience in Western society had any large impact on adult IQ, in any segment of the population, scientists would be showing the data that illustrates it. That body of data does not exist. ' Nobody is "ignoring #5" because that well-known data has been around for years, the Flynn Effect impacted everyone, not just blacks. If anyone is "ignoring" anything on that list here, it's actually you and yours, specifically with regard to the comments of IQ "not simply being a reflection of socioeconomic status." That specific premise has been argued into the ground on this sub-section and has been debunked repeatedly by sources such as above. So again you're just very, very confused on this subject and aren't researching the body of literature but are trying to defend the confused stance previously presented here by one who was using outdated, non-replicating, heavily criticized by scientific peers as untenable whose argument was based on that "childhood SES causes adult IQ." Studies on five year olds cannot be applied to adults. You can't apply a study across populations to other groups. If human IQ was dependent on socioeconomic status, it raises an unsolvable contradiction: How does one get to be smarter if one's poverty causes low IQ and higher IQ is needed to solve poverty?
Pointing out the obvious isn't "anger," but it seems you're intent on derailing this thread. What you did there was not deny a single thing I just said.
And then we have the problem that arises with the claim of racial discrimination causing IQ and test score gaps. What about northeast Asians who score higher than whites? So even the racial discrimination angle is hit or miss and only hits certain racial minority groups? Where is the body of scientific literature that shows race-environment interactions which affect the heritability of IQ but only with select ethnic minority populations in the US?
Thank you for effectively EXPOSING the egregious fallacy that is "scientific racism"! Yes, I know you don't understand how you did that so let me explain. If only genuine academic scientists are allowed to "peer review" then explain why the peer review of the egregious fallacy that is "scientific racism" is CONSISTENTLY NEGATIVE and DEBUNKS the ASININE concept that there is any connection whatsoever between race and IQ? Once you have completed task #1 your second task is to explain why MY own peer review findings are in complete accordance with those of genuine academic scientists? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science 100% of genuine academic scientists agree with my own peer review findings that "scientific racism" is a load of bovine excrement! Obviously I must be doing something right when it comes to peer reviewing.
His source was MEDIA ARTICLE, not a scientific study! Furthermore the OP did Cherry Pick only what he wanted out of that MEDIA ARTICLE and disingenuously FAILED to cite the rest of it which is an example of Cognitive Dissonance, namely ignoring whatever causes CG to occur in those who embrace the Pseudoscience of "scientific racism".
I CHECKED your FIRST source and this is the FULL ABSTRACT that you DISINGENOUSLY CHERRYPICKED! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12211623 The part in RED is what you CHERRY PICKED out of the entire abstract. The part in BLUE exposes that you DISINGENUOUSLY IGNORED the RELEVANT EVIDENCE that SES does IMPACT the "development of cognitive abilities". No, I didn't bother checking the rest of your citiations because I have no doubt whatsoever that they are all EQUALLY BOGUS! Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct about the NEFARIOUS Cherry Picking and Out of Context misquoting by those who embrace the DEBUNKED crap that masquerades as "scientific racism".
WRONG again! All I did was point out that by posting a puerile ad hom in violation of PF Rules that clearly exposed your anger.
Already debunked in my link in a prior post! https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/02/the-unwelcome-revival-of-race-science
Virtually NO One cites complete articles, nor is it allowed or good practice, on most boards. So quoting the most Important parts Instead of the Qualifications is what one SHOULD Do. And where your Cognitive Dissonance/distance, Pseudo-quoting, and Scientific Denialism kicks in. You Seek to IGNORE the main findings in favor of the small print, and Call citing the MAIN FINDINGS "Cherry Picking"! I underlined and Capitalized what Empress cited/highlighted, and it is the MOST IMPORTANT and MAIN Finding, and should be selected above all the qualifications and disclaimers. What you call "cherry Picking" is actually HIGHLIGHTING/EXCERPTING those MAIN Findings/ESSENCES. Exactly what one SHOULD do in message board or debate settings.
Your ridiculous BS got GUTTED Last night by facts/numbers/charts and logic. This is just empty frustration. I showed it did in my last post Put up some rebuttal/meat for a change. Your posts on the last page (and this one) are inadequate/empty. I showed it did in my last post Put up some rebuttal/meat for a change. Your posts on the last page (and this one) are inadequate/empty. This is just your usual and EMPTY Juvenile last-wording You Lost. (and stayed lost after reading my post last night. Only this afternoon losing control.) bye. `
Wrong, as usual! Empress disingenuously CHERRY PICKED a SINGLE finding out of SEVERAL for the nefarious purpose of DENYING that there is any SES INFLUENCE upon IQ! That falls under the label of Pseudoscience AKA Quote Mining AKA the Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking All Genuine Academic Scientists KNOW that EXCLUDING RELEVANT FACTUAL FINDINGS is dishonest and results in the LOSS OF CREDIBILITY! The DELIBERATE OMISSION of the SES Findings in that study exposes the deceitful FARCE that calls itself "scientific racism".
You resort to the Mynah Bird replies. You just PARROT them. Ejay says "Scientific Racism", "Psuedoscience", etc YOU just REPEAT the SAME terms in your next DOZEN posts. No matter that you can't justify them. When I point out you are merely "PARROTING" them, you Steal my word Parrot! across the board. This is INSANE. You even PARROT the word PARROT. Whatever charge you last heard, you repeat... you got/Stole a new word!. No matter that it's INCOHERENT/INAPT, you just repeat it! REPEAT IT. `
PF RULE VIOLATIONS duly noted for the record. NONE of those posts were made IN THIS THREAD therefore you are DERAILING the OP TOPIC by misquoting them OUT OF CONTEXT. FURTHERMORE that kind of behavior falls under the PF Rule Violation of STALKING and/or HARASSING other members. This is your only warning. If you persist you will be reported. Stick to the OP topic and try and find something that ACTUALLY can pass Peer Review to support your bogus "scientific racism" instead of attacking other posters.
And here is YOUR post #162 I reported, among your other INSANE Personal attacks.... with NO CONTENT. Just GENERALLY characterizing me and my posts as "Scientific Racism" "Psuedoscience "Cognitive Dissonance", etc with NO justification/no Specific claim specified or refuted. I have been BEGGING for help with your NO CONTENT pure Repetitive, parroted (from EJay) and identical personal attacks. I reported them AND started a conversation about them. ie, That, like all your Personal attacks, doesn't even specify a sentence or claim, just PERSONALLY attacks blindly. Where's the rebuttal, and of what claim? What was the topic of your #162 except ME? That, and like TEN more of your posts in this thread are ALL personal attack and NO CONTENT. Zero. Just repeating the last terms EJay used in Every subsequent post without attaching any fact/claim to them! !
It is also a PF Rule Violation to discuss Moderator actions, or lack thereof! While this is most DEFINITELY OFF TOPIC you have opened this door so I am going to take the opportunity you have provided to use it as means to educate on the proper way to engage in Civil Discourse here at PF. As a citizen I uphold your right to your misbegotten BELIEF is the DEBUNKED concept of "scientific racism". However the right to express your BELIEF in this disingenuous fallacy DOES NOT entitle your BELIEFS to be immune from LEGITIMATE CRITICISM. ALL of my responses have dealt entirely with the CONTENT of your posts and I have provided links to SUBSTANTIATE the responses that I have made. Concepts like Cognitive Dissonance, Confirmation Bias, Logical Fallacies and Pseudoscience are essentially a means of classifying the CONTENT of the posts that point out how they are FAILING to substantiate the position that is being proposed. In this topic your content has repeatedly failed to pass the standard tests mentioned above. You have taken this legitimate criticism of the content of your posts personally. That is not my problem. In essence the PF Rules apply EQUALLY to both of us. If you have reported my posts and they have not been acted upon that means that they did NOT violate the rules. I have deliberately REFRAINED from reporting your posts because I don't do it with anyone I am directly responding to as a general rule. I have provided you with suggestions as to how you can improve the content of your posts by refraining from falling into any of the above mentioned concepts. If it is not possible to find any such content that does NOT fail in that manner then that means that your BELIEF in "scientific racism" is NOT based upon actual genuine science at all. That does not mean you have to give up your BELIEF. It just means that it does not contain any GENUINE SCIENCE. That is all I have to say on this subject. All further posts attacking me personally will be reported. Have a nice day!
My posts only deal with the fallacious CONTENT of "scientific racism" posts with the stated exceptions above for clarification purposes only.
NO TOPICAL CONTENT for the 10th time at least in the thread. Just EMPTILY REPEATING/Parroting/ACCUSING: "Scientific Racism" "Pseudoscience" "Cognitive Dissonance" etc with NO justification/No SPECIFIC claim/passage specified or refuted. You can't keep repetitively attacking/Characterizing ME/my posts without taking on/addressing/refuting Specific TOPICAL claims/passages. I post meat here. I have Asked YOU several times to "Please" do the same. (that's when you Finally put up.... the Conspiracy link as your only original entry) I am, if anything, consistent and logical. In no way do I have any "cognitive dissonance." My posts are "Cognitively Consistent" with my OP and with each other. Hopefully the discussion can continue without you using the IDENTICAL and baseless attacks on EVERY POST/POSTER, and instead addressing the actual topical Content. `
I wrote another response that included links to studies a couple of days ago but I decided not to post it because I don't need to prove that intelligence is not race based to proponents of a white supremacist ideology. The burden is on them to make a case that's convincing if they have a penchant for feuling such an obnoxious and divisive "scientific" discussion on a political message board/blog. You are correct, even if there are studies that suggest that high IQ is correlated to success, there are others that minimize its importance. Most people can get a job and make a middle class or above living with perseverance. They mischaracterize and overstate the importance of IQ tests. There will probably be a response to this but I have decided to let them preach to their dissonant choir of two until their hoarse. Fortunately, most posters don't seem interested in joining their chorus.
Yes, only scientists peer review scientific papers. I know that's shocking to people without college experience. You don't have the credentials to review a single scientific paper here, and internet forum posts aren't peer review. Dictionaries don't lie.
No, Einstein, I can't "disingenously ignore" what I actually posted. I posted what was relevant to the conversation. You take issue with it because it debunks your false claims here and for no other reason. You're amusing.
