What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

In other words, you have no evidence on a thread asking for evidence.

A culture of education - what you claimed before - is also different from having higher educational standards.

That also ignores the cause and effect at play.

Do East Asian nations have better standards of education that result in higher adult IQ, or are inherently higher IQ East Asian peoples driving the 'demand' for higher educational standards?

Not that I expect you to have the ability to articulate such a point, regardless how much free time you have online.

Great, and I'd say it's their brain volume differences responsible for the IQ difference (genetic) rather than cultural.

Proving what? You're trying to argue that Southeast Asians have lower IQ than Northeast Asians.

Do you even remember you brought this up while claiming cultural differences are responsible for IQ differences?

You'd have to prove culture is more different than genetic factors responsible for intelligence, such as brain volume.

How do you manage to prove that?

You're a delusional case. Nisbett omitted heaps of contradictory studies and data, such as the regression of adult IQ for children in educationally enriched environments.

I've given concrete examples where Lieberman is wrong and made assumptions based off personal belief. You've chosen to ignore these examples and pretend Lieberman's points have never been refuted.

You're a liar, and simply repeat conclusions without addressing previous points or supporting your beliefs with facts.

You mean I haven't told you I have a chemistry degree and work in the field?

Oh, there, I just have, again.

Sure you have. What's your college degree (probably not English due to your grammatical errors)? Are you employed?

I'm taking a vacation day. It's curious you're on, apparently, throughout the day and night.

 

Great responses. It's easy to figure out why you're such a prolific copy-paster.

 

Your posts are becoming increasingly hostile. Are you by any chance in the KKK? Maybe that's why you get so upset when someone challenges your racist world view. I have refuted all of your arguments and all you are reduced to now is childish name-calling.

Have fun on your "vacation."

 

LoL. I find it funny you're claiming I'm not taking a paid day off when you're online day and night.

Are you employed? Is your job related to your college degree? What is your college degree?

As for 'being refuted', sentence fragment responses such as 'no, they haven't', don't count, I can assure you.

Strangely, you haven't offered any evidence that I have seen on the thread asking for evidence that Blacks and Whites have equal cognitive ability.

 

You're on all the time. I can be gone for hours at a time and you'll respond within 10 minutes of my last post. You're projecting.

I told you I'm not answering any more of your personal questions which are irrelevant to the thread so shut up.

I don't need to spend any more time on you Klansmen than that. It's called shortening the exchange.

I already provided plenty of evidence. You admitted that you didn't read my first post so you lost all credibility in this discussion.

 

Feel free proving I post during the day other than the vacation day or holiday.

So, in other words, I have only taken one other vacation day in the last month. It shouldn't be too hard showing the same consistent pattern when I'm actually on by the time stamps on my posts.

Should I bother going through your posting history showing you're posting throughout the day?

Funny you didn't have problems trying to ridicule me until I told you I had a chemistry degree and work in the field.

Why don't you tell us what your degree is in? Do you have a job, and is your job related to your degree?

No, it's called writing your own posts and following the basic guidelines of debate.

You've re-pasted the copy-paste parts of your posts dozens of times by now, which I have addressed.

Either way, try doing what we're all expected to do and write your own arguments instead of streams of copy-paste you pass off as argument.

 

As I'm not adept at multi-quoting, I'll first challenge your beliefs on what is "a pure science" and what is "pseudoscience." There are the fundamental or pure sciences: physics, chemisty and biology. The findings of these fields can be generally accepted as facts and their data is reproducable. Human bias is really not a factor in any of the studies. Down from there are the applied sciences like epidemiolgy and biomedicine. Those fields are a bit less credible as government agencies like WHO and the CDC can sway opinions. Near the bottom are the "special sciences" like the ones doing all the studies on race and IQ: psycholgy, economics and anthroplogy. With these, bias and political agendi are driving forces behind so many of the studies. At the very bottom are the Bigfoot researchers and other cryptozoologists.

The people doing most all of these studies should be questioned. Ruston and Jenson's big study http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf was fronted by the American Psychological Association. Looking at their website, it dosen't look so pure:

Here are some of their political agendi:

Impact of elementary and secondary zero tolerance policies

Mental disability and the death penalty

APA resolution on racism and racial discrimination: A policy statement in support of the goals of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance

APA resolution recommending the retirement of American Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams and organizations

Racial and ethnic bias/profiling in law enforcement and security activities


Resolution on ethnic minority recruitment and retention

Would you trust taking a drug tested only by the drug company that sells it? This kind of rubbish would never be tolerated in the realm of pure sciences.

As for the relative few studies on brain size, IQ and race---they are all left wanting. The level of institutional bias is so great that no current study can fully trusted. As for your 50/50 opinion on heredity and IQ----the 100's of tests showing the similar outcomes are the best evidence of heredity being the far greater influence.
The "Bell Shaped Curve" of natural distrutions applies to every other biological ability---and it must also apply to intelligence. If you were correct, then IQ's tests would be a more odd shaped pattern with the biological "flukes" of geniuses and those with organic brain problems at both ends---and then everyone else more or less straight across the middle corresponding to their environment.

I would not believe Jared Diamond anymore than Ruston, as his theories are worse examples of subjective rubbish. As I've said, to really prove IQ are mostly a product of inheritance, DNA profiling must be done on each participant. MRI's of brain structure would also be nice.

 

I would lump Scientific Racism in the same category as Cryptozoologists, Astrologists, Parapsychologists and the like. Their research has received biased funding but it's also bad science.

To prove racialist beliefs you would need:

a. Evidence that the bulk of allelic variation related to intelligence (IQ genes) is unevenly distributed across geographic populations.

or

b. A credible evolutionary genetic rationale for why there are genetically determined racial differences in the first place.

Racialists have not fulfilled either of these criteria for evidence. All they have is correlation data and indirect evidence in the form of claims of brain size differences between races all of which has been refuted. They have no direct evidence supporting their claims thus scientists would say that their claims are bogus.

 

This testing on IQ and race is about the last taboo in science. The reason to do it is to better understand the world we live in---just like every other study and test done.

The best reason to these tests is for governments, local, state, regional or national, to set reasonable limits on what education can do. In the US we have educational monies tied to test performances. I wouldn't expect a typical school in the Mississippi Delta that is 98% Black to have test scores that have any chance of beating test scores from a Wyoming school that is 98% White, or a Japanese school that is 100% East Asian. It wouldn't matter how much money is spent or how good the teaching staff was--- the genetics limit the final results.

Now, if you were a track coach and your school had 100 ethnic Kenyans or other people with pure East African ansestry to select from---how much better your odds would be of having a winning team as opposed having only only 100 small East Asians to select from. That same genetic forces are at play. Fairness and equality are only abstract ideas. They don't exsist on earth.

 

I agree it is bad science with what has been done so far.

The 1906 test done on brain size and IQ has not been refuted---correctly. I do agree it is not brain size, but brain morphology. There is no need to behead each IQ test participant after their tests are finished to examine their brains. This can be done with MRI's. Small genetic differences in the gyri, and different lobes are there, but I have no seen a single study done since MRI technology has become commonplace.

The political backlash for anyone contemplating doing this would be huge. That is why I've seen nothing done.

Really, only the genetic markers that commonly linked to race as usual with parernity or forensic testing, would be needed to be quantified. The hypothesis being that race is the primary influence on IQ.

 

I would suggest human cloning etc is far higher on that list.

So you are advocating for elitism .. good to know, everything above only says to me that you are wanting to create an under-class instead of trying to give a better all round education to everyone.

 

When do you plan on sharing with us the evidence refuting adoption studies, every form of cognitive testing, IQ differences at 3 years of age, and brain volume differences between Blacks and Whites?

 

I wonder how Dr. Ben Carson would answer this?

Really...I do.

 

/Thread.

 

Already done. You just ignored it and threw tantrums.

I lost some respect for Ben Carson when he came out with his extreme conservative views but he's always been against racism.

The comments near the end of this video are loosely related to the topic:

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

 

Frankly, my eyes tend to glaze over when I read all this argumentation about race and IQ.

But if everything I know about Kalahari Bushmen and others is correct, then living in a hunter-gatherer society, where acquiring the necessities of life only occupy a few hours of every day means the rest of one's time can be spent sitting around telling stories of one's culture to one's children and grandchildren. How can that be a bad thing?

I've watched people of my parents' generation, and mine, literally kill themselves trying, often unsuccessfully, to maintain solvency and the appearance of 'success'-- accumulating the requisite trappings by working 12 to 16 hours a day, every day. Maybe a better thing to be studying about the Bushmen and other 'primitive' hunter-gatherer groups would be to track the incidents of heart attack, stroke and ulcers in those cultures.

 

This is false and you don't need to 'find the genes' or know the evolutionary reason to establish variation in a trait. In fact you must establish variation before the evolutionary reason. I said this before: did you forget?

 

Sounds pretty r selected. At least the Bantu don't eat them these days. Evil whitey made it illegal.

 

To prove that variation in a trait like intelligence is genetic you must have a genetic basis for making the claim. You can't just assume it is genetic when you know that environmental factors have a profound effect on the variation in the trait in question.

 

You can assume it's genetic when the racial pattern persists in all times and places.

 

Except that it doesn't and the racial pattern is selective in the first place.

 

There is a growing consensus in the scientific community that H. sapience and Neanderthals did interbreed and Neanderthals gradually ceased to exist as a distinct group of archaic humans through interbreeding with modern humans. Their complex hunting methods required a group effort and planning in advance and Neanderthals used symbolic objects like eagle claws and perforated animal teeth for pendants and Neanderthal culture was possibly more sophisticated than that of modern humans at the time. Moreover, North Africans with slight Neanderthal admixture have higher IQs (80-90) than pure Africans (70-80) and East Asians (110-113) who inherited higher proportions of Neanderthal DNA than Caucasians are smarter than average Europeans (100).

 

Even the dumbest person of any color is smarter than any racist.

 

First of all you're quoting some racist from another message board, not a scientific article. Secondly, if Neanderthal interbred to a large extent with modern humans it would create a hybrid population. There's only 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA in Europeans and Asians. Interbreeding was negligible and it wouldn't have afforded non-Africans an evolutionary advantage. Since interbreeding was in fact rare modern humans also would not have completely absorbed Neanderthal. They most likely went extinct through replacement because modern humans had better survival techniques. These modern humans by the way were still tropically adapted (they looked like Black Africans).

 

That's Darwinian population control I'm sure you could be down with. Sure, a hunter-gatherer guy might drop dead at 40 and only leave a couple of sprogs behind. So what? How's that any worse than sweating out every second of your working life for forty or fifty years and ending your days on earth sitting in a sun-room in a soiled diaper for half a day at age 80?