Why are there so few Asian Supremacists?

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Obamamania, Aug 11, 2019.

  1. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,221
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is considered bad form to edit anothers remarks, but for clarity I will only the sections I've bolded. I doubt most scientists agree that you can't measure intelligence. There are certainly many different mental abilities, but if it turns out if you are good at one you are generally good at the others.

    As to who is practicing pseudo science here, where is your evidence of no difference in cognitive abilities between the races? I've got a ton that says there is.
     
  2. Obamamania

    Obamamania Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    You can measure some aspects of mental ability however the idea that intelligence can be measured as a unit and ranked in hierarchical fashion has been rejected by most modern scientists.



    Historically, psychometricians have simply been satisfied with debating the statistical underpinnings of g. For example, Herrnstein and Murray (1994) acknowledge that IQ test advocates hold conceptions of intelligence ranging from the one central g of the classicists (i.e., Spearman, Pearson, and Burt), to the multiple intelligence axes promoted by Thurstone (1924) (verbal, quantitative, spatial, etc.), to the 120 intellectual components identified by Guilford (1956)! They further note that Thurstone declared in 1947 that g can vary widely, depending on how it is calculated. Such admissions explain why batteries of tests applied to individuals and groups return different values of correlation; certainly, one would not expect a fundamental underlying mechanism to behave so capriciously. Similarly, a physicist would not expect to get different values for the speed of light depending on the technique used to measure it. Thus, the mutability of g significantly hinders the scientific legitimacy of psychometric theory.

    Source: The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 64, No. 3, Myths and Realities: AfricanAmericans and the Measurement of Human Abilities (Summer, 1995), pp. 277-294


    Did you read all of the research at my Quora link?

    https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-white-black-IQ-gap/answer/Jason-Williams-651
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2019
  3. Obamamania

    Obamamania Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    So where is this ton of evidence you have? You've seen my sources. Show me yours.
     
  4. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,221
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  5. Obamamania

    Obamamania Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    So Rushton and Jensen. You can see that my Quora post is largely a refutation to the arguments of Rushton including research from Biological Anthropology, Archeology, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics and Psychology. So what issues do you have with the research I presented?
     
  6. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,221
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is neither quantitative nor peer reviewed.
     
  7. Obamamania

    Obamamania Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, it is. Check my sources.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2019
  8. Obamamania

    Obamamania Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Not only are my sources quantitative and peer-reviewed they are a thorough refutation to that article by Rushton and Jensen that you cited. Rushton and Jensen were Pioneer Fund grantees (Rushton was their President before he died), an organization notorious for promoting Scientific Racism. Rushton spoke at White Nationalist conferences. So your sources lack credibility and are clearly biased. What I provided is a refutation to the racist argument that Africa produced inferior cultures making its people mentally inferior, anthropological research showing that human populations have equal genetic potential for intelligence, a refutation to the evolutionary arguments of Rushton including including his core claims on brain size and intelligence, genetic research showing that genes related to intelligence do not show a racial association in their distribution (basically a nail in the coffin to the genetic hypothesis) and psychometric research showing not only that the Black-White IQ gap is gradually being reduced but controls for environmental variables eliminate the gap.

    "I frankly don't take Rushton seriously. Jensen would be a different matter, but I have been told he is in his cups and Rushton just signs his name to everything he writes." - Richard Nisbett

    As for that email, the bulk is just filler, a restatement of the abstract for Rushton's book. His thesis here is simply that this conjunction of data (his 'highly consistent three-way pattern of racial differences') is significant and can only be explained genetically.

    The problems with this claim are so great that it's sometimes hard to know
    where to begin, but in general, here are some of the main problems:

    (1) Aggregation of data is only useful if some degree of control and comparability are exerted over the data being aggregated - otherwise, you end up with the GIGO Rule (Garbage In, Garbage Out). Many of Rushton's data sources are exceptionally poor, to the point of being caricatures of scientific research: thus, one of his primary sources on 'sexual behaviour' is a book of 19th-century travel porn, of no serious scientific value, and many of the studies that he cites on IQ and brain size are based on datasets that even people who agree with him accept as unreliable. In the most direct sense, many of his data are the garbage in the GIGO Rule.

    You may or may not have read David Barash's review of Rushton's
    methodology: "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
    variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
    outcome is merely a larger than average pile of sh*t." Barash, David 1995.
    Review of Race, Evolution, and Behavior. _Animal Behaviour_ 49:1131-1133

    (2) Aggregating data on (say) brain size or twinning rates into his three 'racial' groupings conceals the very significant variations in aggregated characteristics _within_ those racial groups. Essentially, he reduces very, very, very diverse characteristics down to single numbers, then generalizes those single numbers to every population within his putative races. However, averages among diverse populations tell you almost nothing about the distributions of those diverse characteristics, nor about the evolutionary pressures that might have brought them into being.

    (3) Many of the characteristics that he thinks are evolutionarily determined have actually changed dramatically over historical time-periods in different parts of the world (and are extremely variable _within_ his 'racial' populations - see #2 above): besides obvious things like longevity, fertility and infant mortality rates, these include characteristics like twinning rates, speed of sexual maturation/first menarche and so on. He treats them as immutable evolutionary differences, whereas in fact they seem entirely sensitive to historical contingency over short time-scales.

    Best

    Scott MacEachern

    Email from David Reznick on Graves' paper critiquing Rushton's evolutionary arguments:

    Joe Graves' article is an accurate representation of the science side. Rushton's "theory" is really just a verbal argument that, as far as I can see, has not substantive support.

    Email from David Reznick
    responding to your Rushton paper:

    Dear Obamamania,

    I have attached a copy of the 2004 paper with some comments. That 2005 paper is far too long for me to take on now but I may take on one or two of the ten arguments sometime to see how good the data are. As you say, the 2004 paper is not clear about what the underlying data are so it is hard to evaluate. I can at least say that Rushton does not know his biology and says numerous things that are untrue and silly. Some of the basics are his characterizations of vertebrate classes as ranging along an r-K continuum. Fish are not necessarily r, for example. Many of the longest lived vertebrates are fish. In fact, I wrote a well received paper about this for a senescence journal once and could send you a copy. r and K selection are no longer accepted as general explanations for life history evolution. I mentioned before that organisms often do array along a continuum that is similar to r and K selection at the extremes, but the factors that shape life histories are often a function of age or stage specific mortality risk. Very different mortality risks can generate the evolution of very similar life histories.

    Rushton's treatment of progress in evolution is wrong by many measures. It turns out that Darwin addressed this issue explicitly, along with addressing whether evolution caused increasing complexity, in the Origin of Species. He was quite emphatic, and quite correct, in arguing that there are no such trends evident in evolution. I have no doubt that E. O. Wilson criticized S. J. Gould's treatment of progress in evolution, but those arguments were based on finer distinctions than whether progress was present or absent.

    Rushton's statistical analysis of the mammals is probably correct, in that there is a positive correlation between brain size, body size and some life history attributes. There has been long standing interest in the evolution of brain size. One strong association is that predators have larger brains than herbivores. This is accompanied by their having larger territories and, we think, facing the requirement for greater cognitive abilities. I suspect they will tend to be more "k-selected" than herbivores by the criteria Rushton has chosen, so his arguments to tangentially capture some aspects of biology that are real. But, it does not follow that we have seen the progressive evolution of predators at the expense of herbivores, since predators cannot survive without an abundance of potential prey. What this tells us instead is that brain size can evolve in concert with the evolution of other aspects of the biology of organisms. However, the entirety of Rushton's statistics are correlations, which mean they cannot define causation. I offer some more specific comments on the correlation-causation issue in comments I inserted on the attached PDF.

    What Rushton never does is apply this same statistical rigor to human races nor does he show the know how to apply them properly. Any attempt by him to apply the above results to humans is not matched with real data on brain size, for example, or real results that show an association between IQ and brain size. Other critical aspects of his argument are simply assertions that do not seem to have any concrete support. For example, he argues that environmental variation is declining which means that heritability must be increasing, yet we see the differences among races becoming larger not smaller. This is his key argument for genetic differences among races in intelligence. What is lacking is any support at all for the argument that environmental variation is declining, particularly environmental variation that might effect performance on IQ tests.

    Sincerely,

    David Reznick

    Here is the PDF he attached with notes on Rushton's paper


    What I have presented is a thorough scientific rebuttal to the pseudoscientific claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence citing multiple credible scholars with data. There is a reason why most of these scholars promoting this theory are Pioneer Fund grantees. They are academic racists. The Pioneer Fund financed the American Eugenicists, Nazi Scientists and was used to promote the interests of Segregationists and White Nationalists.

    On topic I don't know of ANY reputable scholars of Asian descent who are promoting Scientific Racism (except maybe Bruce Lahn but he recanted his statements on his research on brain size and genetics being related to racial differences in intelligence). The only time I have ever seen an Asian person support Scientific Racism is when an Asian woman accused David Suzuki of ignoring Rushton's data in their debate at the University of Western Ontario in 1989.



    She seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Suzuki ignored Rushton's data and stuck to the core arguments on the relationship between genetics, intelligence, IQ disparity and environmental impact on cognitive development. The video contains plenty of sources at the end (and in the description) which do address Rushton's data just as my Quora post does.

    (43:38-45-15) Suzuki: Now remember, neither Rushton nor Jensen is a geneticist. After Jensen published his work in 1969 The Genetics Society of America, the leading Genetics organization in the world, overwhelmingly approved a GSA statement that such work as Jensen's cannot prove a genetic basis for IQ difference in races. World class population geneticists, two of the leading population geneticists in the world, Luca Cavalli-Sforza of Standford and Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford and Richard Lewontin of Harvard have written books on this subject!

    In October 1970 of Scientific American, Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza published the definitive popular work entitled Intelligence and Race in direct response to Jensen's work. Their opening sentence is, "To what extent might behavioral differences between social classes and between races be genetically determined?" 11 pages later, and that's a long article in Scientific American, they conclude, "The question of a possible genetic basis for the Race/IQ difference will be almost impossible to answer satisfactorily before the environmental differences between U.S. Blacks and Whites have been substantially reduced. There is no good case for encouraging the support of studies of this kind on either theoretical or practical grounds."

    (48:42-49-47) Rushton: I'm very disappointed in Dr. Suzuki's presentation. Dr. Suzuki says my ideas on race are too esoteric and he shows however little more than moral outrage. He says that people like me should be rooted out and if I heard correctly he actually called for me to be fired. Well...that is not a Scientific Argument. I don't know that there is very much of substance in what I he said that I can respond to. He went on about Arthur Jensen and IQ and Genetics and completely ignored all the work on two-egg twinning and the 60 other variables that I mentioned including the ranking of the three races.


    (56:30-56:55) Suzuki: My position was very clear. I did not choose to discuss the points he raised because I tried to point out very clearly that Bodmer and Cavalli-Sforza indicate that the genetic relationship or the correlation of the genetic basis that allows comparison between races is simply not possible. And I did not hear you rebut that in any way. And that is the definitive work!

    In addition to citing the genetic arguments from the Scientific American article published in 1970 Suzuki pointed out the absurdities of Rushton's evolutionary arguments, the selectivity of his data and had a laugh with the crowd at the pseudoscientific nature of his survey data (e.g. asking people how many parties they've been to or whether or not they wear a seatbelt). Rushton was a quack who proposed an inverse correlation between penis size and brain size, harassed people at shopping malls asking them perverted sexual questions like how many sexual fantasies they have and how far they can ejaculate and believed that literally every behavior exhibited by humans was influenced by genetic differences between races.

    Richard Lewontin on the pseudoscience of Rushton's survey data:

    Like all biological determinists, Rushton is impelled to show that the characteristics he cares about are genetically different between groups. He shares with Jensen the error of supposing that heritability of variation within groups tells him something about the causes of the differences between groups, but he makes an error of taste that Jensen would never make, and so brings the whole crackpot enterprise down. In a fit of silliness, Rushton tries to convince his reader that everything is heritable in some nontrivial sense, and that the numerically low heritabilities of each socially constructed attribute are collective evidence of an important genetic difference between "races." We learn, for example, from a sample of seventy-six pairs of friends surveyed by Rushton, that the heritabilities of attitudes toward the death penalty, jazz, the royal family, apartheid, censorship, military service, white superiority, and divorce are all between 40 percent and 50 percent, while much lower heritabilities were found for attitudes toward caning, nudist camps, and pajama parties. He was, curiously, unable to calculate the heritabilities for opinions on evolution, modern art, and striptease shows. The probability of serving in Vietnam had a heritability of 35 percent.

    Source: Review: Of Genes and Genitals Author(s): Richard Lewontin Reviewed work(s): Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective. by J. Philippe Rushton Transition, No. 69 (1996), pp. 178-193

    This racist nonsense has been thoroughly refuted and only gets real attention from scientifically illiterate racists on the internet. There are no recent academic debates at any college Universities on this subject that I am aware of. The closet thing was Charles Murray ducking a debate with Joseph Graves and saying he would wait 5 years for advances in genetic research to show that his claims on race and intelligence were correct but as I showed at the Quora link we already have genetic data refuting this argument. There isn't ever going to be genetic research for Murray and like-minded scholars to promote by CREDIBLE geneticists. This crackpot theory has been dismissed as pseudoscience.
     
  9. Obamamania

    Obamamania Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2019
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Now that I have shown that the Scientific Racism promoted by quacks like Rushton have been thoroughly refuted here is a challenge to those claiming that there are a lot of Asian Supremacists.

    Find me Asians who speak English who use Scientific Racism to claim that Asians are mentally superior to Whites. I want to see 5 videos of laymen and 5 videos of scholars of Asian descent who promote this research. I don't care which ethnicity and I'll even make it easier on you and allow them to speak other languages so long as there are English subtitles for the video.

    The only Asian scholar I have ever even seen talk about the subject is David Suzuki (a Japanese-Canadian which is ironic given all the claims of Japanese racism here) and he is an Egalitarian who provided a scientific rebuttal to Rushton. So I want to see some Asian equivalents of Rushton. There are plenty of White people on Youtube promoting Scientific Racism and some Blacks promoting Black Supremacy but very few Asians promoting Asian Supremacy which is interesting given that Asians are at the top of the racial IQ hierarchy.
     
  10. Esau

    Esau Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2015
    Messages:
    16,703
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    stop promoting anti black prejudice please, examples or its just fallacy on your behalf
     

Share This Page