Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

Read the PDF files and provide feedback. Don't be such a coward!

 

no doubt the IQ tests for poor whites come up lower than wealthy whites.

and yet they are all white.

so much for your "IQ is all genes" crap

 

While I make no bones about the fact that I am no expert in these matters, I am an expert in spotting childish attempts at promoting a pseudo intellectual argument that in reality is nothing more than a sad excuse for cherry picked, right-wing, racist ideology. As amply displayed in the various replies you have received your so called evidence lacks any creditability in dealing with the numerous influences that can, and do, effect intelligence. add to this your majority reliance on opinions without credible peer revue concerning numerous things, it is plain to see your agenda is not one of intellectual debate but of foisting your irrelevance onto others.

You accuse me of being "under the spell of political correctness" when you have no knowledge of who I am or what I support or do not, the classic retreat of those who have no rationality. You have no idea if I support AA, none what so ever, all you have done is make assumptions (which is pretty much what you have done all along) not only about me but about the subject as a whole. Your creditability sinks lower and lower with every comment you make.

Yes, everyone does have an opinion, just like an ********, your one just spouts more (*)(*)(*)(*) than most.

 

<Rule 3>

Irregardless............more evidence of the destructive nature of political correctness regarding science.

http://pc.martinsewell.com/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299305/

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...-blacks-hampered-by-race-does-not-exist-dogma

http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=53315

 

If you think the articles are so important just post a summary in your own woids here.

 

As expected infantile projections are all you have.

I shall sit back and watch you humiliate yourself with the greatest pleasure.

 

What I posted is more than enough to indict political correctness and how it hampers genetic research. As a devotee of a failed ideology you have nothing to refute the posted information indicting the said ideology.

 

What I posted is more than enough to indict political correctness and how it hampers genetic research. As a devotee of a failed ideology you have nothing to refute the posted information indicting the said ideology.

The problem the fans of political correctness have with genetics is that it singles out individuals as special or unique. This is intolerable to a ideology which is devoted to collectivism, which destroys individualism. Competition is bad. Everyone&#8217;s a winner. Everyone has to be included and treated the same. Singling out individuals as special or unique excludes others, so that&#8217;s out. Lost is individual responsibility and accountability, the drive to compete and win, the motivation to be recognized for achievement and superior performance.

It levels the playing field, brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Star performers have to take it down a notch so everyone can be included. Like when you bring slower students into a gifted class, everything has to be dumbed down. It diminishes team performance and organizational effectiveness.

Everything has to be filtered to ensure no one is offended. In a nutshell refusing to recognize that genetics determines intelligence is one of the main reasons our public schools are such a mess trying to pretend that all children are equal, that they can all be taught the same and if so will all advance to the same level and when they fail the teachers are blamed....in their stubborn refusal to admit not all children can learn at the same pace or at the same level. That not all children are able to peform at a academic level.


The Boston Marathon bombing wasn&#8217;t the fault of some sick, twisted, cowardly, barbarian terrorists, &#8220;It was tax day,&#8221; according to former Obama advisor David Axelrod. And former Congressman Barney Frank used it as an opportunity to make a political argument for a &#8220;well-funded&#8221; government.


Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton isn&#8217;t responsible for the Benghazi attacks and four murdered Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens; it&#8217;s a congressional funding problem.


When you remove personal responsibility by telling people they&#8217;re doing great when they&#8217;re not and giving them stuff for doing nothing, in time, they feel like they deserve it. That&#8217;s where our growing entitlement culture is coming from.

 

What difference would posting a summary do? If you were going to read them you would have done so. The articles have abstracts that summarize themselves. I'll tell you what, I'm going to write the summaries in good faith any way just to prove I can and post the links again giving you the option to read them. If you can't open PDF links all you have to do is download Adobe Acrobat Reader and the links will work for you. I think I'm being very generous here.

1) What a tangled web he weaves: Race, reproductive strategies and Rushton's life history theory Anthropological Theory 2002; 2; 131 (2002)

Summary: In this article Joseph Graves critiques the theory of Rushton that human races evolved differences in reproductive strategies which influenced their mental characteristics. Graves shows in detail the flaws of Rushton's evolutionary arguments which rely entirely on r/K selection theory by presenting critical experiments that falsify key components of the theory. He further shows that the data Rushton compiled to support his theory were inadequate for testing his hypothesis. Graves concludes that Rushton displayed a lack of understanding Life History theory in general and that his research was of such poor quality it could only be reasonably described as pseudoscience motivated by a racist ideological agenda.

2) HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 302–310

Summary: In this article Richard Nisbett reviews the scientific literature presenting evidence that Rushton and Jensen ignored or misinterpreted evidence relevant to questions concerning the heritability of the Black-White IQ gap. Among the research he examines are racial admixture studies that show that European ancestry does not boost the IQ of African-Americans, studies showing that the Black IQ average is gradually converging on the White IQ average, studies that reveal the alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs and adoption studies that do not support hereditarian interpretations of the Black-White IQ gap. Nisbett concludes that the genetic contribution to the Black-White IQ gap is nonexistent.

So now you have the links, the means to open them and summaries written in my own words. If you are up to task provide feedback in your own words. If you can't have the integrity to admit this.

 

Jensen Replies to Critics:


On "Jensenism": A Reply to Critics.
Jensen, Arthur R.
In this address, Jensen discusses his views on the effects of heredity and environment on human intelligence, in an attempt to clarify his original statements on this subject. Since his article appeared in the "Harvard Educational Review" in 1969, the term "Jensenism" has accrued a variety of meanings through popular usage (according to Jensen) and his ideas have been attacked on the basis of these accrued meanings. In this article, Jensen restates his original views on the nature-nurture argument, deals with the types of reactions to and criticisms of "Jensenism," heritability, and teachability, with particular reference to heritability in the Negro population, and discusses the educational implications (namely, compensatory education) of his ideas. (SB)
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Culture Fair Tests, Disadvantaged, Disadvantaged Youth, Environment, Genetics, Heredity, Intelligence, Intelligence Differences, Intelligence Quotient, Intelligence Tests, Prenatal Influences, Social Differences, Social Influences

 

OK....

1) I asked you to provide feedback on these articles in your own words and instead you copy/pasted text from the blog that you linked to.

2) I find it ironic that in post #245 you criticized me for expecting others to do my homework for me by posting a bunch of studies asking people to read them and here you are pasting text from a blog including a bunch of studies...asking me to read them.

3) I've already read all of the articles you are recommending.

At this point it's clear that you are unable to address the research presented to you. The smart thing to do would be to just admit that and try to move on but something tells me you are going to continue to spam links and evade addressing my sources.

Edit: ElDiablo I see that you are now editing your response. This suggests to me that you are unsure of how to respond. Citing Jensen's article will not help you. I suggest that you learn how to respond in your own words to my post as I requested. That is the only way to gain credibility. First read the links then respond. If you can't just admit you can't.

 

I will not attempt to speak forJensen....he replied to his critics....

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED063445

 

Again this doesn't help you. The first article is a critique of Rushton by Graves, it has nothing to do with Jensen. The second article critiques the work of Rushton and Jensen with evidence not addressed in his 1972 article on Jensenism. You're going to have to dig deep and do some real brain work here. I'll help you out by saying that Rushton never responded to Graves in print. He did respond to Nisbett and I am prepared to address those arguments should you paste that link. But don't just paste links. Try to answer in your own words.

 

What it comes down is whose sources are the most credible....Jensen was very credible and quite distinguished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

http://www.vdare.com/articles/jared-taylor-remembers-philippe-rushton-and-arthur-jensen

 

Here is something interesting in regards to above.


Nisbett answered by Rushton & Jensen
Posted on May 19th, 2009
by jonjayray in All News

When the first publicity for Nisbett&#8217;s recent book on IQ came out, I said: &#8220;I have not read the book and nothing in the review encourages me to do so but I assume that some of my colleagues who specialize in IQ studies will read it and dissect it in due course. Meanwhile, I just offer a few comments that occur to me&#8221;.

My expectation has now been fulfilled. I have just received from J.P. Rushton the draft of a paper which dissects Nisbett&#8217;s arguments in detail. It is in the form of a book review so should see academic publication fairly soon.

As I also expected, the liberties taken with the facts by Nisbett are enormous. If there is only one finding out of 5 that suits Nisbett, he will quote that one finding and ignore the other 4. That is a caricature of how real science is done.

Many of the points that Rushton & Jensen make are similar to points I have made in my various comments on Nisbett (See here, here and here) but Rushton & Jensen give the actual figures complete with full references.

As the paper is in draft, I cannot quote any of it directly but I can quote an excerpt that they provide from Flynn. Flynn has been one of the chief proponents of environmental rather than genetic influences on IQ and Nisbett relies on him heavily for some of his arguments. Flynn does however listen to those on the genetic side of the debate and he has recently changed his tune considerably. The following is from page 85 of Flynn&#8217;s 2008 book.

There are two messages. The first is familiar: You cannot dismiss black gains on whites just because they do not tally with the g loadings of subtests. But the second is new and unexpected. The brute fact that black gains on whites do not tally with g loadings tells us something about causes. The causes of the black gains are like hearing aids. They do cut the cognitive gap but they are not eliminating the root causes. And conversely, if the root causes are somehow eliminated, we can be confident that the IQ gap and the g gap will both disappear&#8221;.

In other words, Flynn accepts that there is an underlying black/white difference in IQ that cannot be traced to environmental factors. Nisbett quotes a lot from Flynn but he does NOT quote that conclusion.

And Rushton & Jensen also report empirical tests of the arm-waving assertions that emanate from Leftists about black environmental disadvantage. None of the assertions are in fact borne out by the research findings.

In that connection I found out about a quite remarkable fact that I was not previously aware of. What if a little kid came from such a poor environment that he had to be hospitalized for malnutrition and was then adopted out into a white family? One would think that a kid from such a background would be permanently handicapped. They obviously would not come from an elite family to start with and nutrition during infancy is known to be very important to subsequent development. Yet precisely that experience has happened to considerable numbers of children from East Asian backgrounds (Korea etc.). I think you know what I am going to say: Far from being dumb, these kids were after only a few years scoring ABOVE the white average on IQ! Genetics triumph! East Asians are of course in general smarter than we Anglos. Their weakness is that they respect authority too much.

Leftists will of course argue that the finding simply show what a wonderful job white adoptive parents do but isn&#8217;t it odd that blacks adopted by whites still stay close to THEIR average racial IQ &#8212; i.e. around a whole standard deviation below whites &#8212; particularly if we look at adult IQ rather than IQ measured during childhood. It is an old truth that efforts to raise black IQ sometimes seem to be doing some good during childhood but by adulthood the improvement vanishes. Needless to say, Nisbett quotes adoption studies where IQ was measured in childhood and ignores major studies where IQ was measured in adulthood.

In most fields of science, work as incompetent as Nisbett&#8217;s would earn him nothing but scorn from his colleagues but Nisbett is already heavily laden with honours and will no doubt receive even more honours before long. The human race loves its myths far more than it loves facts.

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM.

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/

 

Graves and Nisbett are also very credible and distinguished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_L._Graves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Nisbett

http://jsnn.ncat.uncg.edu/faculty/joseph-l-graves-jr-ph-d/

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/

[video=youtube;VfGlmVpUajs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfGlmVpUajs[/video]

[video=youtube;RnCzHC_EM18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnCzHC_EM18[/video]

 

Rushton and Jensen's response to Nisbett's "Intelligence and how to get it"

http://www.iqscorner.com/2009/06/rushton-jensen-response-to-nisbett-and.html

 

Didn't I say that this is what you were going to do?

 

Unfortunately for you your nesbitt source has been discredited>>>>>>

'As I also expected, the liberties taken with the facts by Nisbett are enormous. If there is only one finding out of 5 that suits Nisbett, he will quote that one finding and ignore the other 4. That is a caricature of how real science is done.' by
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/

You are really wasting your time trying to prove that culture and environment play much of a role in i.q.

The science of genetics and genetic research are making huge strides and more is to come and the future in regards to the nature of intelligence will be more and more dominated by genetics.....yet those who feel short-changed by not having a good i.q. should not be discouraged....as has been implied by the latest scientific discovery in the field of genetics....it may be possible to manipulate the genes in order to improve the intelligence of those who have not been endowed by nature with a good intelligence.

The Future Belongs to genetics

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722575.000-the-future-belongs-to---/

 

No, it hasn't and certainly not by what you quoted. Your source fails to go in to specifics about exactly what information they are accusing Nisbett of cherry-picking. Furthermore his book received many positive reviews.

Example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/books/review/Holt-t.html?_r=0

 

of course the liberals always support politically correct material.....but as genetics makes huge advances that sort of thing will not last long.

Also....nisbitt didnt have the latest genetic reasearch data....which supports the heritability aspect of intelligence.


Intelligence is a core construct in differential psychology and behavioural genetics, and should be so in cognitive neuroscience. It is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes such as education, occupation, mental and physical health and illness, and mortality. Intelligence is one of the most heritable behavioural traits. Here, we highlight five genetic findings that are special to intelligence differences and that have important implications for its genetic architecture and for gene-hunting expeditions. (i) The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood. (ii) Intelligence captures genetic effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about 0.60 or higher. (iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence (spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as height and weight (~0.20). Assortative mating pumps additive genetic variance into the population every generation, contributing to the high narrow heritability (additive genetic variance) of intelligence. (iv) Unlike psychiatric disorders, intelligence is normally distributed with a positive end of exceptional performance that is a model for &#8216;positive genetics&#8217;. (v) Intelligence is associated with education and social class and broadens the causal perspectives on how these three inter-correlated variables contribute to social mobility, and health, illness and mortality differences. These five findings arose primarily from twin studies. They are being confirmed by the first new quantitative genetic technique in a century&#8212;Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA)&#8212;which estimates genetic influence using genome-wide genotypes in large samples of unrelated individuals. Comparing GCTA results to the results of twin studies reveals important insights into the genetic architecture of intelligence that are relevant to attempts to narrow the &#8216;missing heritability&#8217; gap

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v20/n1/full/mp2014105a.html

 

I have no dog in this fight about variations of IQs relative to nurturing v genetics. As a Psychologist I find the studies done thus far are assesses correlation, not causation. BUT, I have strong issues with people who prefer opinions or paraphrasing over the studies themselves. Opinions are pure puny man made arguments, not fact, not statistically proved, not even certified as correct. The only way to achieve understanding is LOOK AT AND POST CONCLUSIONS FROM EMPIRICAL DATA AND STUDIES.

 

This is an ad hominem attack.

No findings in the field of genetics disputes the claim that group differences in IQ are caused by the environment.

Nisbett co-authored a paper very recently which addresses all the major advances in the field of psychometrics including recent genetic research related to intelligence.

Nisbett (2012) - Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments

Abstract

We review new findings and new theoretical developments in the field of intelligence. New findings include the following: (a) Heritability of IQ varies significantly by social class. (b) Almost no genetic polymorphisms have been discovered that are consistently associated with variation in IQ in the normal range. (c) Much has been learned about the biological underpinnings of intelligence. (d) &#8220;Crystallized&#8221; and &#8220;fluid&#8221; IQ are quite different aspects of intelligence at both the behavioral and biological levels. (e) The importance of the environment for IQ is established by the 12-point to 18-point increase in IQ when children are adopted from working-class to middle-class homes. (f) Even when improvements in IQ produced by the most effective early childhood interventions fail to persist, there can be very marked effects on academic achievement and life outcomes. (g) In most developed countries studied, gains on IQ tests have continued, and they are beginning in the developing world. (h) Sex differences in aspects of intelligence are due partly to identifiable biological factors and partly to socialization factors. (i) The IQ gap between Blacks and Whites has been reduced by 0.33 SD in recent years. We report theorizing concerning (a) the relationship between working memory and intelligence, (b) the apparent contradiction between strong heritability effects on IQ and strong secular effects on IQ, (c) whether a general intelligence factor could arise from initially largely independent cognitive skills, (d) the relation between self-regulation and cognitive skills, and (e) the effects of stress on intelligence.

Keywords: intelligence, fluid and crystallized intelligence, environmental and genetic influences, heritability, race and sex differences

That's an interesting study. But what does it have to do with the subject of race, genetics and intelligence? You seem to have trouble knowing how to post relevant material.

 

I have asked ElDiablo several times to look at two articles (published in peer-reviewed journals and written by experts in their fields) that provide empirical evidence from numerous studies establishing their position on Rushton's work. These are not opinion pieces but rebuttals and critiques of Rushton's research. I have asked ElDiablo to respond to these articles in his own words and he can not do it.

 

Isn't that what you have done?