Why don't race realist ever come up with solutions?

Easily settled! LINK?
LOL. Gameover.

Flustered/Outed now huh?
Resorting to pure name-calling.

Contrary to your last post assertion,
I answered your LYING racist/motivation charge by (again) explaining how I came to post on Race: defending evolution from creationists, then liberal creationists.
And have explained that many times.
It's YOU who always, and now admittedly, always had the race/racISM as a motivation.

I did show they back/are my position.
You, OTOH, post/SPAM virtually every string with a 2-bit Black 'scientist', at a 2-bit Black College (Graves)...
and do so as if this clown is gospel and oft do so in Consecutive posts/Consecutive pages.
It's worse than any Evangelical citing the NT.
I use new sources in virtually every discussion, including ie, introducing you to World Class Coyne, who BURIES yo Home boy.
Everyone is a "racist."

Huh?
More Burden shifting and 12 IQ nonsense 'challenge'.
I pointed AND Linked Two other boards where I crushed/stuffed you. (not incl here)

So !&%^^&*(()*%#$&* - now want me to go elsewhere, to a FOURTH Forum, which I guess you feel is biased enough to get rid of anyone espousing a race realist position.
If you were smart, you'd realize how ridiculous that is.
BTW, my un-PC position WAS in the minority on Every board we've debated.
"scared"?

This is like your Goofy "You can't tell a Black voice challenge".
Where you want people to submit to Your own Cherry-picked 5 black-sounding white guys, and 5 white-sounding Black guys, INSTEAD of a random/fair sample.. as "Proof" we can't tell voices with consistency. (if not 100%)
It's so transparently Dishonest/Obtuse! You're really just a 3-card-Monte guy posing as a serious debater.

Why do we need another venue?
Is there something either of us can't, or hasn't been able to say previous?
No. You just Lost, so you want to venue shop for your own bias into eternity.
How about Ebony?
They'll definitely do your work for you!
If you don't want to/Can't debate on anything but one board, DON'T.

This is like Thanos starting multiple strings on This very topic and losing every few months.
+

 

I could just as easily make the same argument in reverse, substituting the words "bad environment" for "single motherhood." Is there some way that you can prove that bad environment is causation, not merely correlation, in a way that distinguishes it from the correlation with single motherhood?

Well, then I'm not going to discuss this further, as you have clearly made up your mind already.

 

I stand corrected on your previous use of the Link. However not on who used it in our interaction. And again, you posted it here AS IF it proved your point and did Not contain Two points of view.

And again, Brace can say anything he wants, but Gill actually USES it every day, and in Legal cases.
A big part what constitutes/defines/qualifies for 'Race' IS utility in the real world.

On the contrary.
I first saw the term is where you still can. Kinda.
Liberal 'Slate' Magazine in 2007!
First link
https://www.google.com/search?q=liv.....69i57j0l4.9983j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The poor author DID make the case for Race and IQ Differential, but was forced by management and reader outrage to change the Title.
So that if you click on the google link, you'll see the RE-titled article: "Created Equal", but it is anything but.

Really one of the first cracks in the liberal race-denial armor.

And of course, conspicuously dropped was your charge of how I ever got into the 'race' debate. Not from racism, but from evo.
A BIG omission on such a Slanderous accusation.

I did in fact verify my position with multiple links, Multiple times.
And you post Graves NCAT.edu credentials.
What, AGAIN, I questioned and mentioned most was your OBSESSIVE, ABUSIVE, and near singular use of him.

And your use of him as the Final word/"rebuttal", instead of mere opinion he is
I had to school you on the difference
AGAIN, you've not only used him on consecutive posts/Consecutive pages, but use the Same passages in short order.
LONG-winded Burial/Bludgeon attempts, oft unable to do anything but.

As well as posting your Ridiculous hero-Worship letters to someone you already knew agreed with you, instead of picking (as I do by email) scientists/authors to debate.

In fact, these so-called "sci/science' forums are filled with high school/college students being taught only the orthodoxy and nothing but.

The level of debate on ScienceForums was much LOWER than on the standard political boards (PF, USMB, DP)
What's Ironic is you getting Clocked here and demanding yet MORE Venues!
I'm not ducking anything.
Again, Every board I posted on, I was in the minority.
And
when comparing our debate strengths, my sources are more diverse, and better.
I mean, without Graves you are LOST.
Really. That clown is 90% of your backing/burying.
While with me, I could drop any 5 sources and still Crush you.. and do regularly.

They closed it because they were getting their little teenie trolls destroyed and it's a contentious topic.
NO one had any debate. You started debating but got Blown away by ME (several of me).

Including me categorically Porking the Clown Graves while QUOTING YOU.
Again "Bering Strait" about the 12th post down:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...e-races-that-differ-in-mental-traits/?page=14
You whiffed.

See that's the kind of board you want. one that BANS any race realists posters. 2 of us got banned 7 times, No race deniers did.
Leaving NONE in the discussion.
They closed it because they lost.

And, ie, 'seth-of-lagos' UNWITtingly confirmed the sub-Saharan IQ.
Some were much worse one-line trolls.
That's why you want to go there/the like.

I don't have the time to "stalk you across the internet"
Dirty try at a brush back.
However, when one searches for debate on Race, (which one does do) one can't help but notice you are a somewhat well known figure (oof) among the Race Blog crowd, as well as posting on hundreds more boards than I ever want to... as well as having your own boobtube race page.
Again, so somewhat of a 'public figure' in that respect.

and "Ducking" what?
I've had much better debates on DP than any of those bopper science boards, and asst teacher liberal mods.
I mean, I am generally a progressive, but the left shuts down free speech.
You can't post, ie, a WSJ article on liberal 'democratic undergound.' It's a banable offense!

IAC, and again, your wanting to go OFF this site just shows you want/need HELP, and cannot stand on your own.
All the while dishonestly/goofily 'challenging me' to get you there.
Sorry. Only You would fall for your own challenge.

You repeat a question/goofy/fallacious 'challenge' not realizing how transparently Rigged it is.
I mean, it indicates your level, that you think others are so naive.

IAC, the debate here, in general, is much better. Me, Lil mike, fifthofnovember, and a few others.
Far better than any of those bopper (and troll) boards. But you want a cheerleading section and rigged (asst teacher) mod squad.
Try again.
+

 

There was no "accusation." It was merely name calling. The truth is, you wanted to take the conversation off on a tangent, and when I brought you back to one of the main points of the thread, and showed how I had already answered it, you got pissed and called me a name. I don't need to defend myself from childish name calling.

This, by the way, is why we can't have good discussions on race. When you start losing, you cry racist.

 

If you're happy with your debates with me then why are you writing endless screeds trying to justify yourself as the victor? I don't need to debate you. I haven't been posting as much because I don't see a point any more. For someone who is so confident in how good of a debater they are you put a lot of time and energy in to trying to justify why you shouldn't debate. I responded to the OP. I posted on topic. You haven't challenged my position and neither have your racist allies. So as far as I'm concerned it's over.

 

Well, as I said before, I believe we generally agree on this. And I agree that there is more to "the environment" than the family situation, although I still believe that it is primary. I guess I just feel pressured by the OP to come up with a "solution", and saying "it's the environment" seems too general and wide-ranging to be solvable. I mean, even if we identify single motherhood as the most impactful thing we can address, that is still a difficult problem to solve. And I honestly don't know how to break the cycle, even though I think I know how the cycle got started. Solving "the environment" seems too complex a problem to even have any idea where to start.

Honestly, I don't have any desire to "prove" that I'm not coming from a position of racism. I feel like the whole thing is semantic anyway, since I think "race realist" means a different thing to you than it does to me.

 

Improving the environment is a good start. But saying you're going to solve a social problem as complex as Socioeconomic disparities between demographic groups is like saying you are going to solve hunger, poverty and bring about world peace. Social problems have existed since the dawn of man.

What does it mean to you? Where did you hear the term and how have you seen it applied? Sharing your background on a topic helps.

 

Bottom line on this thread. A bunch of people trying to justify their bigotry by attempts to rationalize it.

Hint: If you have to spend this much time and effort trying to rationalize your stance on why you think other races are more prone to crime, or poverty, or whatever - then you are just rationalizing bigotry. Give up. Just own it and move on.

 

Well this has been an interesting and convoluted thread. I do agree that those who dismiss blacks as genetically inferior are not indicative of true classic liberalism.

And I believe the merits of racial societies lie within culture. Culture can change for the good or the bad, but it's a process and takes will and motivation from the inside.

I remember a newspaper had a breadth of stories on what teachers had to go through teaching inner city black elementary school children. Children started school not even knowing their name or age...they were called
A variety of off handed nic names by the people who raised them. Most had never seen a book and they lived in chaotic homes and the only way to talk to the care giver was if the teachers personally visited the homes as no one bothered attending parent teacher conferences. Most all the kids knew of a family member in jail and most had a family member who had been murdered. There was no traditional family. That type of environment is an IQ killer.

They are taught from the time they are born that their future is hopeless.

Change that and our whole society will change. And the original poster is correct that this type of devestation started when our government decided to be the father and caregiver in the early 60s. Bill Cosby has recognized the demise of black culture because it wasn't like that when he grew up poor.

How to change something like that is to call it out and not be afraid of being called racists by doing so.

 

People who are afraid of being called racists generally are actually racists. If you're not racist then what do you have to be afraid of? When it comes to "race-realism" people need to understand that proponents of this concept really are racists and they are not interested in raising awareness about cultural problems within communities or finding solutions to racial disparities in Socioeconomic status. They are only interested in promoting racism to suit their racist ideological agenda. Science to them is merely a tool being misused to rationalize racism. They are not interested in the scientific pursuit of truth. They are simply trying to promote a racist narrative and their main focus is justifying racism against Black people.

This is what racists are really trying to claim:

"Social dysfunction in the Black community is not the product of institutional racism but rather being mentally inferior due to genetic differences caused by their defective evolutionary lineage."

Basically they are blaming the victim, promoting racist myths about human nature and using pseudoscience to justify their racist ideology. These racist attitudes are what lead to the American Eugenics Movement and the Holocaust. They have been used to justify slavery, genocide and segregation among other racist social policies all across the world leading to the death of millions and ruination of many more lives. If they could influence social policy more atrocities could occur. Right now the biggest problem caused by this propaganda is that it is used as motivation for hate crimes. We can't have a meaningful dialogue about improving race-relations without recognizing the fact that racist trolls are trying to dominate discussion on this forum and others across the internet by promoting racism disguised as objective analysis of scientific research on racial differences and then taking the scientific high ground when it comes to responding to their opponents by claiming that they are the ones motivated by political bias and reacting to data and theories with an unscientific mentality. I am particularly disgusted by this because I have seen several people who don't know how to refute this propaganda fooled in to thinking that is has validity.

All they are doing is seeking a genetic basis to racist stereotypes and then pretending that any criticism of them is railing against legitimate science when many of their opponents are actual respected scientists.

Now with all of that being said I do believe that you have to recognize the difference between people who are trying to help improve race-relations and those that are only interested in bashing and vilifying people. I think that Bill Cosby was genuinely interested in raising awareness about bad behavior in poor Black communities in order to uplift those communities e.g. "Stop using poverty as an excuse to be a drug dealer, gang member or violent criminal who doesn't care about education, work ethic and promoting good moral values that help our community grow and prosper."

I think his intentions with this message are good and it's really a shame that he has fallen from grace as I believe he really tried to be a positive role model for the Black community through his acting career particularly with The Cosby Show and may end up going to prison for drugging women and raping them. If he did the crime he needs to do that time regardless of his age but I do think he had good intentions with his message.

However I have seen people who take this direction to the extreme of making sweeping generalizations and bashing Black people. Pat Buchanan for example has gone on national TV and told Black liberals that their leaders have failed their community created a victim mentality where Blacks don't accept responsibility for the problems in their community.



I have seen even some Black people who have been labeled Uncle Toms and Coons buy in to this mindset that discouraging bad behavior of some Blacks justifies making generalizations about the entire community. Tommy Sotomayor comes to mind. He was notorious for using examples Blacks behaving in inappropriate ways to claim that Black people in general find this behavior to be socially acceptable and that it rationalizes racial prejudice against them even if he sees racism itself as morally wrong. He did all of this while acting like a clown himself and being a hypocrite (ex. Criticizing Black women for twerking on the internet, using one named Caramel Kitten as an example of a promiscuous Black woman who is setting a bad example for young Black girls like his daughter and then hooking up with that same woman).

Bottom line: Proponents of racial inferiority have no interest in improving society. They only care about promoting racism. Some critics of cultural problems within communities cross the line of promoting racism themselves with their condescending and disrespectful attitude.

By the way while I was writing this post I read two articles related to the topic of single motherhood in the Black community and the claim that welfare has lead to fatherlessness in the Black community which leads to criminality. Both articles state that these ideas are myths that are promoting racism against Black parents and sexism against single Black mothers.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/5/13/1383179/-The-absent-black-father-myth-debunked-by-CDC

http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/black-youth-fatherless-homes/

I will look in to that subject more myself. There is some interesting data there as well.

 

Yeah, I guess we're done with this topic. Better men than you or I have been trying to solve these problems for decades and coming up empty.

I don't remember where I first heard it, but the school of thought I am familiar with is that promoted by folks like Stefan Molyneux. Basically, it is just the recognition that thousands of years of adapting to different environments has produced noticeable biological differences, both physical and mental. We believe that there is greater diversity in mankind than skin, eye, and hair color, and the like. As per the OP, what would I do about these facts? Well, I don't think there is any "solution" to a fish being a fish. And in America, we have a great deal of race mixing, so the differences here are less marked here than in "purebloods". As we have been discussing, I think culture and environment are the bigger deals here. But in dealing with sub-Saharan Africa, for instance (in a foreign policy and/or foreign aid situation), I think we need to realize that it's a lost cause to try to bring them up to our societal level. And any aid efforts can in no way rely on most of the population not doing stupid ****, like having a bunch of kids when everybody's starving. I certainly don't advocate going over there and killing anybody over it. I just think we need to let them do what they do and just realize that they aren't ever going to be like us.

 

OK. You shared your perspective now I'll share mine. As I stated earlier in the thread, I started discussing racism on the internet around 2004. I started off posting on message boards specifically to combat the view of racists. What motivated me were some bad experiences with racism in grade school including a few fights, the details of which I have summarized elsewhere on the board. Long story short, I had recently graduated from high school and was in college at the time. What attracted me to the debates were the intellectual conversations because quite frankly my perception of racists at the time was based on the mainstream media image of Klansmen, Skinheads, Neo-Nazis and uneducated rural people who White kids in grade school called hicks (or rednecks). So before I started reading racist message boards (ex. Stormfront) I had a stereotypical view of what a racist was (stupid, backward, ignorant, insecure morons hating people for no other reason the color of their skin). My real world experiences at the time were consistent with the stereotype (I rode a hick bus once in 4th grade and this high school student looked at me and told me he hated me. I asked him why and he said he it was because I was Black. I asked him why he hated Black people and he said he didn't know he just hated them. That was the limit of the intellect of the kids I got in fights with in Middle School and High School as well).

So the idea of "smart racists" was completely unfamiliar me. When I started reading what was being said on these boards I wanted to debate them to challenge myself. When I first encountered the subject of race and intelligence I was honestly baffled by the idea that anyone thought that Black people or any other group of people were stupid or violent because of genetic differences. Have these people never heard of the concept of a common human nature? I honestly didn't take the claim seriously for awhile until I noticed that more and more posters on the message board, fellow Egalitarians, were falling for this propaganda. They didn't know how to refute all of this research on statistics, IQ data, genetic etc.

So I started reading books on the subject to learn more about the topic in order to strengthen my arguments. I started with The Mismeasure of Man which was a real eye opener in to the origins of the school of thought known as Scientific Racism. I have read several books since then. I probably heard of the term race-realism from Rushton and Jensen's article, "WANTED: MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACY."

I took a special interest in the research of Rushton because on one of the message boards I was posting on he was the go to source for Race & IQ discussion. He was constantly being cited and his book Race, Evolution and Behavior was commonly called "The Bible of Race-Realism." Rushton was their champion. One day a poster on another message board emailed me to ask if I could get access to some articles written by Joseph Graves in order to refute Rushton. I tracked down Graves email address and asked him for the studies which he gave me. We had several email conversations about Rushton's work. After reading the articles I started debating the racists citing this new information. Graves also informed me that he debated Rushton in person at a panel discussion on this topic. I was able to get the video for that from the librarian at the school. The racists on the message board I was posting on aggressively debated me for a few years. One of them eventually had a mental breakdown, conceded defeat, then later had himself banned from the board in a fit of rage and eventually left the board for good. I was eventually banned from the board because I was being harassed by racist posters and retaliated with some trolling antics of my own which included spamming interracial porn. I still have a Youtube channel up with the original video of Graves and Rushton in debate. I posted elsewhere on the internet and about this topic including this message board. You can check my post history and the threads I have created to see some of my older discussions.

So that is my background on the topic and while it might be long-winded and convoluted I just want to let you know where I am coming from. Now to your specific points, I am familiar with Stefan Molyneux's Youtube channel. I have seen a few of his videos including his interview with Linda Gottfredson. I will say this, your perspective on this subject only reinforces my point. Race-realism is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize racial prejudices by seeking a genetic basis to racist stereotypes. Look at what you wrote. You made a connection between racial differences in physical traits and mental traits then compared finding a solution to Socioeconomic disparities between people to finding a solution to a fish being a fish. You then went on to justify giving up on foreign aid to Africa because they are incapable of developing a society equal to "us" because they are too stupid to know how to function like intelligent human beings (e.g. having too many children while everyone around them is starving).

Your statements are consistent with what some call benign racism which is justifying racist views without expressing malice towards the group you're being racist to e.g. "They may be a bunch of stupid, worthless, sub-humans but that doesn't mean we should kill them all."

What I would like you to do is look at this excerpt from the very first book I read on the subject (and remember that this book was first published in the 1980s and revised in 1996). Tell me whether or not you feel the argument the author is addressing doesn't echo your exact sentiment:

The penultimate chapter presents an apocalyptic vision of a society with a growing underclass permanently mired in the inevitable sloth of their low IQ's. They will take over our city centers, keep having illegitimate babies (for many are too stupid to practice birth control), commit more crimes, and ultimately require a kind of custodial state, more to keep them in check (and out of our high IQ neighborhoods) than with any hope for an amelioration that low IQ makes impossible in any case. Herrnstein and Murray actually write (p. 526): "In short, by custodial state, we have in mind a high-tech and more lavish version of the Indian reservation for some substantial minority of the nation's population, while the rest of America tries to go about its business."

The final chapter then tries to suggest an alternative, but I have never read anything so feeble, so unlikely, so almost grotesquely inadequate. They yearn romantically for the "good old days" of towns and neighborhoods where all people could be given tasks of value and self-esteem could be found for all steps in the IQ hierarchy (so Forrest Gump might collect the clothing for the church raffle, while Mr. Murray and the other bright folks do the planning
and keep the accounts. Have they forgotten about the town Jew and the dwellers on the other side of the tracks in many of these idyllic villages?). I do believe in this concept of neighborhood, and I will fight for its return. I grew up in such a place within that mosaic known as Queens, New York City, but can anyone seriously find solutions (rather than important palliatives) to our social ills therein?

However, if Herrnstein and Murray are wrong about IQ as an immutable thing in the head, with humans graded in a single scale of general capacity, leaving large numbers of custodial incompetents at the bottom, then the model that generates their gloomy vision collapses, and the wonderful variousness of human abilities, properly nurtured, reemerges. We must fight the doctrine of The Bell Curve both because it is wrong and because it will, if activated, cut off all possibility of proper nurturance for everyone's intelligence. Of course we cannot all be rocket scientists or brain surgeons (to use the two current slang synecdoches for smartest of the smart), but those who can't might be rock musicians or professional athletes (and gain far more social prestige and salary thereby) while others will indeed serve by standing and waiting.

I closed Chapter 7 in The Mismeasure of Man on the unreality of g and the fallacy of regarding intelligence as a single innate thing-in-the-head (rather than a rough vernacular term for a wondrous panoply of largely independent abilities) with a marvelous quote from John Stuart Mill, well worth repeating to debunk this generation's recycling of biological determinism for the genetics of intelligence:

The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something particularly abstruse and mysterious. How strange that we would let a single false number divide us, when evolution has united all people in the recency of our common ancestry—thus under girding with a shared humanity that infinite variety which custom can never stale. E pluribusunum.

Source: The Mismeasure of Man (Revised & Expanded) by Stephen Jay Gould p. 376-378

With all that being said I highly recommend getting a more balanced view on this subject. Rebuttals to this research have been made by respected scientists. I read Rushton book, as well as The Bell Curve and others to see where proponents of race-realism are getting their information in addition to online websites, blogs and videos. How much research from opposition have you read?

 

I cut out the background info you gave because it doesn't really call for a response and to keep this post from getting too long.

No, I wasn't talking about socioeconomic disparities in that sentence, I was just talking about the different environmental adaptations humans underwent. The "it is what it is" sentiment was referring to genetic makeup only. Obviously, socioeconomically, things could be done to address those disparities, even if it is something as simple (and questionable in desirability) as wealth redistribution.

Um, well...don't they? A lot of your book excerpt below is about saying that you can't put a meaningful number on intelligence, and there is certainly a good case to be made for that. But I think the standard put forth in Forrest Gump was pretty valid: stupid is as stupid does. When we can see clear folly, we don't need to get into the weeds when it comes to I.Q. tests.

I want to point out that I did not, and do not, use the term "sub-human" when referring to people of other races. We are all human, just with different adaptations. There are freshwater fish and saltwater fish, but neither of those two types are "sub-fish."

Well, the part I put in italics does bear a striking resemblance to the reality we see, does it not? The only difference, again, is that we need not judge this truth based on an I.Q. number, but upon the behaviors that we witness (stupid is as stupid does).

I agree, the simple notion of returning to the "good old days" is indeed feeble, unlikely, and inadequate.

This has been addressed. We need not go by Mill's "false number." By their works ye shall know them.

I'm not sure who I would call "opposition" exactly. I've read articles on race and I.Q. by people saying it's cultural bias and also by people saying it isn't. But since I.Q. as a measure is falling out of favor anyway, I'm not sure it matters. But I'm sure you've read much more extensively on the subject. I never got into race fights as a kid (must be because I'm such a benign racist), so I never developed a beef that drove me to scour the globe for arguments.

 

How much research have you actually done on African societies to come to the conclusion that they are so stupid they have no concept of how to control their birth rates so there is enough food for people to eat? The claim is extremely offensive and ridiculous with no basis in reality.

You don't use the word sub-human but you have no problem with the word stupid. You think that adaptation to different environments would make certain populations within a species "stupid." What do you base this on? You can read the opening posts from the following threads for my thoughts on this which are supported by sources before giving your reply.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pseudoscience-of-j-philippe-rushton.373375/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-geographical-origins-of-modern-humans.374443/

You don't need to scour the globe. If you're going to make the argument that your position is based on legitimate scientific research then at the bare minimum you should look in to whether or not the research you are referencing is regarded as credible by academia.

You can easily do that on the internet without reading hundreds of studies. I will share just 5 articles on the subject that I feel are a good representation of academic opposition to "race-realism" and provide 5 videos. You can look at all of this information and provide feedback when you have time to respond.

1) Intelligence, Race, and Genetics American Psychologist Vol. 60, No. 1, 46–59 (2005)

2) What a tangled web he weaves Anthropological Theory Vol 2(2): 131–154 (2002)

3) 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

4) Africanist Archaeology and Ancient IQ: Racial Science and Cultural Evolution in the Twenty-First Century World Archaeology, Vol. 38, No. 1, Race, Racism and Archaeology (Mar., 2006), pp. 72-92

5) Race, Genomics, and IQ: Slight Return for Intelligence Quotient: Testing, Role of Genetics and the Environment and Social Outcomes, Ed. Joseph Kush, Nova Scientific Publishers, pp. 69 –86, 2013





(Start 3rd video at 47:00)

 

OH No!
It's Ejay's usual net-wide SPAMMING Burial BS.
The usual Dog-and-Pony show/drone.
Including HIS youtube page Dishonestly RE-TITLING The Suzuki-Rushton debate as "Rushton Refuted".
Suzuki never even makes an on topic argument, just Vents his outrage, as one of the post-debate questioner notes.

A note demonstrating IQ and Race:!
Let ME teach YOU how to make a Coherent point on this format. After a Decade+ of you Botching/Faking and attempting to Bury it.

Take the most cogent excerpt from one or two from those papers and put it up!
NO ONE is going to watch 8 hours of five Youtubes, and do 12 hours of reading of five strudies!
WTF is that?
You know no one can refute that huge indigestible material en mass.
What you're Disingenuously counting on is the sheer amount/volume of material (which no will read/watch) will intimidate people into thinking it must be true. It still ain't.

OTOH, (my/true side) there is Reality, and 100 Years of global IQ tests (including socioeconomic equalizers like Trans-racial adoption studies), that make your all your trash 'academic.' (pun intended)
+

 

Fifthofnovember says he is unfamiliar with opposition to "race-realism" so I provided reference material. I told him he can provide feedback when he has time. That's his choice whether he wants to read those studies or watch the videos. There is nothing dishonest about the title of my Suzuki vs. Rushton video. Rushton was refuted. Rushton failed to refute the arguments of Suzuki and was the laughing stock of the debate. Suzuki refuted the core arguments of Rushton and Rushton had no rebuttal.

Here are some key quotes:

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."

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 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.


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!

Now I provided two threads where I presented evidence in the opening posts of both showing that there is no scientific basis to the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. Anyone interested can read the articles for themselves but if you want a brief summary and an excerpt I can give one.

Intelligence is a polygenic trait which means it is controlled by the expression of many genes. As a beneficial trait intelligence would be favored by natural selection so there is no scientific reason why genes related to intelligence would be unevenly differentiated across geographic populations within a species. The high heritability of IQ indicates that genes that impact intelligence run in families so if you're highly intelligent more than likely so are your parents and close relatives. Since intelligence has to be nurtured for a person to realize their genetic potential environment also has a strong impact on how intelligent a person will be. In the absence of any reasonable explanation from an evolutionary and genetic standpoint why human populations would differ for a trait like intelligence the position that racial differences in IQ are 100% caused by environmental differences between groups is not only defensible scientifically but valid and supported by empirical evidence in many studies such as the ones I cited which were written by scholars in the fields of Psychology, Biology, Anthropology and Genetics.

Here is an excerpt from a book that summarizes this position eloquently:

If you have a rebuttal to the argument here then provide it. Further showboating only supports my point that you have run out of legitimate arguments to make and have resorted to trolling with dishonest debate tactics.

 

Responding to your other post will take a while, as it is rather meaty. But I am not impervious to new information, so who knows? I may come back and say you've proven your case. However, in this post, the response seems rather obvious.

Since tribes and small villages would often be the outgrowth of a few families, and everybody in the village is everybody else's second cousin, it should be easy to see how family heritage translates into population heritage.

But there is no absence of a reasonable evolutionary explanation. In addition to what I just said above, there is this: if humans first emerged in Africa, then the people who left Africa to go on to form other races were the explorers. It is not unreasonable to think that people of above average intelligence would be the explorers (who then founded new populations of above average intelligence). Additionally, even if you don't, for whatever reason, believe that smarter folks would be the explorers, the very act of traveling to unknown lands would subject them to evolutionary pressures that those who stayed home would never face. The dumb explorers would die at a much higher rate than the dumb homebodies. Your book excerpt says that one would have to assume there was some form of natural selection that was only operating on the sub-Saharan populations to explain the IQ difference, but that's completely backward. They would instead have been shielded from natural selection by remaining in familiar settings.

 

By all means, review the research on your own time. Bare in mind that this is just a sample of the research I have done but I posted some of the best sources and videos I have seen that address this subject.

That would only be relevant to the earliest populations of humans not to humans living today who descend from many generations of people spanning tens of thousands of years.

There are several problems with your evolutionary explanation....

1) You are ignoring the evolutionary history of humans before they left Africa from single-celled organisms to hominids to anatomically modern humans. Humans became anatomically and behaviorally modern before they left Africa so the populations who left already had a general cognitive capacity before they ventured to other continents. Books have been written about this subject. For example I have two books by Chris Stringer one of the foremost experts on human evolution who addressed all important issues regarding human evolutionary history including the development of our intelligence. One of the threads I recommended that you read actually contains my email conversations with him. You should read the opening post at the very least.

2) The first humans based on the archeological record originated in parts of East Africa. Some of those early humans left to populate other continents and some of them migrated to other parts of Africa so there was a lot of exploring going on in Africa itself. To say that only the ones who left Africa were the smart ones is factually incorrect.

3) You're missing Graves point about natural selection. Remember what I said before, intelligence is a beneficial trait that would be favored by natural selection. So the question to ask is, why would high intelligence not be important in Africa but very important on other continents? That's what he means by a form of natural selection operating only on Africans that for some reason is different from other regions. Graves critiqued and refuted the only major theory from proponents of race-realism that have attempted to explain this which was Rushton's Differential K theory that he presented in his book Race, Evolution and Behavior. One of the articles I posted provided Graves detailed critiqued which he also presented in one of the videos I posted. You should watch that full video and read the article when you have time.

4) You are assuming that being on a new continent would present an evolutionary pressure for migrating humans. That is the case for traits that have adaptive significance but not for those that are necessary for a species to survive regardless of the environment they live in. Our average intelligence which is far greater than any animal on Earth is the very reason why humans were able to survive and thrive on other continents.

Graves' article and video present a thorough and technical overview of the problem with your evolutionary reasoning and those of scholars like Rushton but most people have difficulty understanding the technical points without a good understanding of evolutionary biology. You might find this information easier to digest before getting in to the more complex points in his article.

Cliff Notes:

1. There are adaptive traits all human populations have in common (ex. salinity, iron content and blood pressure and other biochemical and physiological features).

2. Human intelligence has adaptive value.

3. Modern humans evolved from Homo Erectus based on mandibular evidence.

4. Based on Archeological evidence human populations during the Pleistocene Epoch shared hunting strategies.

5. Modern humans evolved articular speech which distinguishes them from the Apes and all human populations share the evolutionary trademarks of this development (ex. Broca's area).

6. Human brain size attained modern levels and ceased to expand during the Middle Stone Age.

7. All human children learn language during the same age span and each group is capable of learning other languages.

8. Differences in human life ways around the world arose so recently from the perspective of evolutionary history that there has been no time for any differential adaptive response to have occurred.

 

Nicely stated.
Now let me help you back up what is Obvious, and contrary to the ridickuloius claims of Ejay and the NCAT House 'scientist' Graves.

1. There are obviously significant physical differences among human Groups/Races/Subspecies.

Such that the major non-hybrized groups (of the last few hundreds/thousands of years can easily be identified (E Asians, sub-Saharans, Euros).

2. If you send your Blood into one of many services like 23andMe/Nat Geo's Genographic project, they will tell you what Percent of each you are.
(most use 9-11, some just the old lesser 3/4)

3. Among those physical differences, and contrary to the BS Ejay posts, is Skull shape and Volume. One of the many reasons to believe there could be/are cognitive/behavioral differences.

3a. Gould's (liberal Creationsi/Leftist) book title 'Mismeasure of Man' was based on his attempt to show that earlier work on Skull Volume by Morton (1799-1851) was wrong, and that all Races have the same skull volume.
And that's the way it sat until someone checked Gould.

As it turned out, a previous hero of mine, and someone I had cited 100 times in debate v creationists - CHEATED.
Gould manipulated the skulls!

The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias
Jason E. Lewis, David DeGusta, Marc R. Meyer, Janet M. Monge, Alan E. Mann, Ralph L. Holloway
PLOS
Published: June 7, 2011

and the above is one of Two studies Refuting Gould contained in Wiki's entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crani..._races_and_19th-20th_century_scientific_ideas
Cranial capacity, races and 19th-20th century scientific ideas

We now have a (not all) basis for Race difference in IQ.
And Morton was Not alone.

So the 'Mismeasurement' was all Gould's.
Filthy cheating in the name of PC/liberal politics.

There are racial Skull size/volume differences.
and Hark, corresponding IQ score Differences.
Remarkable too, is that the largest skull volume, is NE Asians, the people with the smallest stature/bodies of the 3 groups.
Why do the smallest people have the biggest brains?
It's counter-intuitive unless....
So we do have a strong, if not all, the underpinning of what is Common Knowledge, if unhappily so.

and So much more
I may even start another string or two.


EDIT
Below (and of course, above) I see we have yet another Ejay confirmation bias "Dear Uncle Joe, who I know agrees with me, or I wouldn't write..." POS.
Graves Spam til we all Vomit.

Ejay Cannot have a race debate without Graves' mistakes to copy multiple times.
He uses it like a creationist uses the NT. Scripturally.
I use logic and different sources in every string, he posts his letters to Uncle Joe.

EDIT 2
Look at Ejay go!
He keeps posting more Graves to prove.. Graves!
A Cult of one.

Are you his PR man? Himself?
This hyper-SPAMMING in every string is OCD.
+

 

This may be overkill but in case you do decide to read Graves work and provide a rebuttal you should know that I had an email conversation with another biologist who read Graves' paper, approved of his argument then read one of Rushton's papers on the topic and made several criticisms including writing notes within the article I sent him in addition to the email response below. Getting a second opinion is a good thing.

Reznick notes on Rushton - Placing intelligence into an evolutionary framework or how g fits into the r–K matrix of life-history traits including longevity Intelligence 32 (2004) 321–328

That should give you a good overview with the problems with the evolutionary arguments of proponents of race-realism. Not only are arguments such as yours based on fallacious reasoning but there is plenty of evidence from diverse disciplines that refute this argument such as those in the articles I posted which include psychometric, archeological, anthropological and genetic research.

Proponents of race-realism rarely discuss this research outside of the internet because they are regarded as fringe and discredited in academia. They mainly present their work to organizations supportive of their ideas such as those by White Nationalists or at college universities where they give speeches and don't allow their work to be challenged. When they do debate serious scientists the results are like what you see in the videos I posted.

 

I agree. Let facts speak for themselves. Lets focus on what can be done about the high crime rates.

 

I already addressed brain size and IQ as well as rebuttals to Gould's research (and Rushton's research on brain size) in previous discussions so I will just paste in the relevant information from older discussions.

First of all you really can't get more biased and ridiculous than Rushton citing pornography as a credible source on sex differences between races among his other blunders as a researcher.

As far as Gould is concerned he did not mismeasure Morton's skulls. In fact he didn't measure them at all he simply analyzed his data and pointed out errors. His research on Morton's work has been largely vindicated by Michael Weisberg who analyzed the work of Morton, Gould as well as Jason Lewis and his colleagues who published a paper in 2011 claiming that Gould made mistakes in his interpretation of Morton's data revealing bias on his part. Among Weisberg's points was that Gould was correct in his assessment that Morton's measurements of crania differed between his seed-shot and lead-shot data. They not only differed for every racial category but differed by varying degrees of magnitude between the groups. Morton's African sample differed most significantly indicating that Morton or his assistant did not measure the skulls correctly resulting in a systematic error that conformed to Morton's racial bias.



Gould and Weisberg both report a racial hierarchy with their corrected figures but one that is much less statistically significant than Morton's and actually contradicts Morton's racial hierarchy.





Weisberg addresses the issue of variation is cranial capacity and how it doesn't correspond to racist theories about brain size and intelligence.

So Gould was not biased in his assessment of Morton's data although he did make errors of his own he was mostly correct about Morton.


Brain size does not determine intelligence within the species normal range of variation and there is no evidence of racial hierarchies in brain size. Rushton had a particular fixation on this subject and he misrepresented research to fit his evolutionary theories which was refuted by several critics.

 

You can't refute Graves nor any of my other sources so you complain about the source instead.

Try responding to any of the following:

These are critiques of Rushton's claims on brain size from 3 different sources. The excerpt from Sussman's book also cites many more. You don't respond to these arguments because you don't know how.

 

There are "critiques" of ANY Race Realist research. There are critiques of virtually everything Rushton ever said/demonstrated.
In your 100% Race-based posting world/life, Graves is God, Rushton is the anti-Christ.
And you devoutly hold up the Graves-Bible against the VampiRushton hourly.

I rarely/almost never use Rushton, though you put him in anyway. Otherwise YOU have no rebuttal.
Rushton, coming up here in association with the Morton/Gould thing, and Rushton was correct.

Like your singular/religious dependence on Graves as protagonist, you have the same for Rushton as the antagonist.
You can always find bashing of his "methods" by the PC mainstream.
If you mention "Rushton" in passing, or even not at all, Ejay has 100 knee-Jerk links that go up faster than Pavlov's barks.

Not realized in your little 2-person (illogical) universe, is that Cranial Volume does NOT depend on Rushton.
TWO separate modern Studies found Morton Accurate but Gould cheating. (= +3)
Then, in addition, I cited studies by Beals, and Ho, in my Wiki link. (+2 = +5)

And just like IQ studies/results, alot of people Bash them for PC reasons ("PC Scientific Denialists"), but NO ONE comes up with their OWN IQ studies or own Brain Volume studies.
They DON'T want to know. They are Science-denying we're-all-the-samers.
They just 'bashionalize.'

So, as I said above, Ejay's LIFE/all of his tiny debate world, depend posting on God/Graves, and Devil/Rushton-bashing.
Rushton being the easiest and longest running target of liberal MSM/academia.

But it's important to note Rushton has Never been "refuted", only bashed to hell. His premises about Race/IQ/Behavior remain hated/method-bashed, but not "refuted."

The world and the outcome/behavior of it's people's every day confirm him.
The unfolding Genome will help further do so, as we find genes for these mental controls.
As we already have for ie, Higher more sensitive Testosterone/androgen receptors in blacks, Genes for IQ have already started being found. (links galore), etc.

"I don't know how"?
You're not within 30 IQ points of a real debate, you're on spamming auto-pilot, every day, every board the same: Graves/Rushton. Cued up and ready to go, no matter what/who was said.

When they find all the Genes for IQ, and that they're more effective in ie, Asians/Ashkenazis, you'll still be playing Graves v Rushton.
Get a life before it's 100% over.
+

 

You're not debating. All you are doing is whining about sources and being a drama queen e.g. "Get a life before it's 100% over."

My life doesn't revolve around Race & IQ discussion. This is a fringe topic which is only being discussed by racists on remote corners of the internet. Find me one college professor at a University who is giving lectures on this subject stating that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence. Just one in the last 5 years. Find one segment on a national news network where a respected scientist has talked about this research in the last 5 years. You won't be able to do it because they don't exist. Your racist heroes are dying off (ex. Rushton and Jensen) and your crackpot theories only get attention on the internet. This isn't a subject of debate in mainstream science. Most people aren't even aware of this research or don't take it seriously. This is not a hot topic on any science message boards because the only people who are genuinely interested in it are racists like you and their critics. I myself have gotten bored of it which is why I spend less time on it.

I've also noticed that all you are capable of doing is link dumping and tallying up your sources as if quantity matters more than quality. Your reliance on Wikipedia, an online Encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, shows that you don't have any real knowledge on this subject beyond internet research. What books have you read on the subject? Which scholars have you emailed? As for your latest sources, if you'd actually read the paper by Beals et al. (1984), as I have, you'd know that authors don't claim that there are racial hierarchies in brain size or that variation in brain size is related to intelligence.

Exhibit A:

The Ho et al. (1980) study is outdated. Brain weight at autopsy can not be used reliably to make comparisons between the brain weights of healthy, living individuals and certainly not between populations. The reason you don't see a lot of brain volume/cranial capacity/brain size studies being done recently for comparisons between populations or races is because that sort of research was debunked decades ago (ex. Tobias, 1970).

Also not only did you not respond to the research I cited which validates Gould's core findings on measurement bias in Morton's crania collection I don't think you even read the study that criticized Gould's work. I emailed the lead author, Jason Lewis, years ago and while he defended his position on his critique of Gould he rejected the idea that Morton or any other scholars work validates the claim of racial hierarchies in brain size that determine differences in intelligence. He actually cited Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984) as a reference to research refuting this claim.

I disagree with Lewis though on the claim that Morton didn't believe in racial hierarchies in intelligence. Weisberg indicates that he did and after reviewing Morton's writing myself it's very clear that he had a racist bias against certain groups and was interested in making comparisons in cranial capacity to validate his racial prejudices.

So none of the sources you've cited validate your argument. They are finding genes related to intelligence and modern genomic research indicates that these "IQ genes" do not show a racial association. I've already provided sources for that.

That's Game, Set and Match.

You have no credible sources that support your position. If you do share with us any of the following:

1) Books you have read on the subject that support your position.

2) Videos of any respect scientists who have given lectures in an academic setting on the subject.

3) Email conversations between yourself and a respected scientist on the subject that supports your position.

I have provided all of that information in this and other threads. All I have seen from you is link dumps to research you have either not read, don't understand, come from biased sources or have been refuted a long time ago. Where is the credible research on this subject that you have provided? I have refuted you point by point and all you can do in response is complain about my sources whose credibility you can not challenge.