Your post was DISINGENUOUS because it dishonestly EXCLUDED the RELEVANT findings establishing that SES does have an impact on IQ. By doing this you seriously harmed your own credibility but that is NOT my problem.
That left wing opinion editorial ranting against "eugenics" not only did not address my specific remarks, but is in fact NOT part of a body of scientific literature I was referring to in order to validate a claim made on this forum. Again, you have no argument and you post nonsense and then invoke EJ talking points to cover when it's pointed out. In the responding post you will 1) Post giggle emote 2) Cry Pseudoscience 3) Cry Cognitive dissonance 4) Cry racism 5) Cry cherry picking or any mix of the above.
I just posted several studies which prove that "childhood SES" does not "cause adult IQ" and you completely ignored it with THIS gambit. You're not even sticking to topic in good faith because frankly, you can't because you not only have no defensible position, you are too scientifically illiterate to discuss the subject.
False - the only claims of SES impact on IQ are among three to five year olds. By the time one is a teen, that impact is long diminished, assuming it existed at all because one of the papers I posted was a large-scale study in Florida that picked up ZERO such SES effects. You're purposely ignoring that because you can't address it and are making these nonsense posts accusing me of "leaving out proof" that "childhood SES causes adult IQ." Your posts are complete nonsense. It's like discussing oil painting with a fingerpainter.
Reading this sentence immediately activated my built-in racism detector. Now I have to only scan the text for "Blacks" or "Whites" and voila ...
Abject FAILURE on your part to refute any of the FACTS in my post means that all of them still stand UNCONTESTED!
Egregious PF RULE VIOLATIONS duly noted and IGNORED for DEROGATORY reasons along with the kneejerk denialism.
Correct, you haven't refuted the studies I showed which prove that environment's impact on IQ markedly decreases as a child gets older and that there are childhood studies which show now SES impact on IQ. You are thus at an impasse.
Yet more "scientific racism" bovine excrement easily DEBUNKED by the actual content of your own original link that you disingenuously MISQUOTED out context. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12211623 As highlighted in red above the testing was done at ages 5, 7, 10 and 12 years of age and the correlation coefficients ranged from .65 to .78. Furthermore the FINDING that you DELIBERATELY OMITTED demonstrated that the SES does have a RESPONSIBILITY for changes in the "development of cognitive abilities". No amount of kneejerk denialism or FAILURE to include FACTUAL FINDINGS alter the DOCUMENTED results of the study.
What about a "decrease of environmental influences" do you not understand here? Tell me, what are the "correlation coefficients" being discussed there? Explain please, specifically. Also, cite your sources that prove that I "DELIBERATELY OMITTED demonstrated that the SES does have a RESPONSIBILITY for changes in the 'development of cognitive abilities'" Where is this demonstrated evidence? You've had a multitude posted on these threads that prove otherwise and you categorically ignore them without sufficient response.
Here is the problem. We don't experiment on humans. In order to get a pure result, we would need to remove children at birth and run a life long experiments giving the different races the same exact upbringing with no variances. ...But that would be unethical. So we attempt to create studies that are inherently flawed. Since we can not keep the variants constant in the testing allowed...any "evidence" is flawed. Making determinations off that flawed data is still just junk science.
I'm wondering where you get the idea from that 100 years of science is invalid because of your off the cuff remark as a "TexMexChef"? Are you saying that every study we've done on human health is invalid because we "experiment on humans"? Seriously, you have no clue. Move on.
Kindly refrain from projecting your own shortcomings onto others. You flatly denied that SES has any impact on IQ and that has been exposed as complete and utter claptrap! Then you moved the goalposts to only 5 year olds once that too was exposed. Now you are resorting to asinine strawman drivel. That says volumes! Here again is yet another study PROVING that childhood malnutrition NEGATIVELY impacts adult IQ. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3796166/
Ironic since your post was OFF TOPIC because it was just a ranting screed of PF Rule Violation insults.
YOUR Cherry Picked post content was shown in BLUE against the FACTUAL EVIDENCE of SES that you deliberately OMITTED which was shown in RED.
False claim. You're misquoting me and mishmashing things together into a confused jumble. The few studies that show high SES impacts on IQ are on toddlers about age three to five. After that, genes play an increasing role in IQ until adulthood when they're about .90 of the person's IQ. Your problem is you don't understand this basic fact but keep commenting anyway. I've made a number of posts here on the subject. Studies on small children where environmental impacts are greatest are not consistently showing SES impacts on IQ. The one I posted from Florida above, with a sample of some 11,000 showed zero SES impacts on their IQ even in childhood. Your argument on this subject has more holes than Swiss cheese. I've already stated this -- nutrition's effects on IQ can happen if the nutrition is severe enough. No such thing exists in the US outside of parental neglect. Your argument is that this applies today to an entire race of people. That requires you to prove that black people are across-the-board malnourished in general, specifically enough to negatively impact IQ. Nobody that's invoked nutrition has of yet been able to show this. Why? It doesn't exist. We are an overnourished, overfed society. What you need is a coherent argument.
No, I showed the relevant extract of the outcome of the study that addressed my comments regarding genetic effects on IQ. No more, no less. Your pointing to some other portion of the extract doesn't invalidate what the extract says about genetic effects on IQ. So are you going to answer me or not? What about a "decrease of environmental influences" do you not understand here? Tell me, what are the "correlation coefficients" being discussed there? Explain please, specifically. Also, cite your sources that prove that I "DELIBERATELY OMITTED demonstrated that the SES does have a RESPONSIBILITY for changes in the 'development of cognitive abilities'" Where is this demonstrated evidence? You've had a multitude posted on these threads that prove otherwise and you categorically ignore them without sufficient response.
Except NO one save people who have NO clue what this debate is about, and haven't read the thread, think Race and IQ is a "Black/White" debate. Do you have issues with NE Asians having higher IQ's than whites? I don't. Whites are not throwing in the towel on life because of it either. So Solly They're already done that "Experiment". It's called Transracial Adoption studies. And guess what? Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic Race differences in average IQ are Largely Genetic Medical Research News 26-Apr-2005 https://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/Race-differences-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx .....The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)." The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply. "Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001. "Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even AFTER matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they Cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence." 1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, Both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. [.....] 4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. 5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ Remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.. and 7 more at Link.
Sorry sport. ALL those so called studies are not valid. They are the best that can produced but are far from definitive because it is immoral to separate large groups of children from their parents to experiment on. There are not enough sets of twins to run a large enough test. Your little tests are as accurate as can be ...but are still flawed. Flawed still is flawed.
It is not "immoral" to Adopt children with no parents. The difference, in fact, was first noted when US and Belgian families adopted (often Malnutrited) Korean and Vietnamese War Babies. They came out with Higher IQs than their adopted families, despite their circumstance If they had come out lower, there would been every excuse for it. But the IQ Hierarchy remains in the best experiments possible. and there ARE "enough" Twin sets, and Tens of Thousands have been tested in Many studies "sport." And these differences remain despite Income/socioeconomic/etc. YOU LOSE "Sport" and You post No Data "Sport" Your posts are just Empty/Unbacked bogus hackery "sport." `
So this all boils down to the abjest FAILURE to COMPREHEND that here in America we are OVERFED while being seriously UNDERNOURISHED! http://naturalsociety.com/paradox-u-s-overfed-malnourished-nation/ https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/are-fruits-and-vegetables-less-nutritious-today.aspx https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010...archers-find-high-fructose-corn-syrup-prompts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3313629/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19858683 Malnutrition in America has far greater impacts on those who are less able to afford a healthy diet. Any guesses who those might be? The same people who are being needlessly DENIGRATED by the proponents of the DEBUNKED "scientific racism" bovine excrement. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/nutrition-hunger-food-children-vitamins-us Once again we can NOTE that this is happening IN AMERICA and it is causing LIFELONG problems INCLUDING a negative impact on IQ.
Footstomping hissyfit was previously DEBUNKED in post #184 above. http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/math-reading-75-genetic.472120/page-10
We no longer rely exclusively on plants for nourishment. We have vitamins, and they're cheap. Further, generally lacking some nutrient doesn't necessarily mean the type required to negatively impact IQ. Also, you're showing articles about American diets in general, not something that you are trying to claim is affecting blacks in particular, and not whites. Again, your sources are mismatches and don't defend claims you're making.
So you're not answering because you can't because you haven't an iota of scientific background and have no clue as to what you're doing which is why you presented a war stress study on 50 year old Vietnam veterans to prove that "childhood SES causes adult IQ." I've presented a number of studies that debunks the SES impact on childhood IQ claim and you have not responded and are instead essentially spamming garbage all over this thread, seemingly intent on derailing it. You understand this is against forum rules, right? Off the cuff claims do not debunk scientific studies. You'd know that if you had a background in science.
