The Pseudoscience of J. Philippe Rushton

That would be my guess but let's hear what he has to say.

Sab, what Black pseudoscience is commonly taught in American Universities?

 

I havent a clue what jungle jitters is but Afrocentrism is not just bad practice it is a program of outright lying.

US universities actually endorse this nonsense alongside critical race studies programs.

 

Afrocentrism is not a science. I asked you specifically about Black pseudoscience that is taught in Universities. Afrocentrism mainly involves teaching students African history.There are some pseudohistorical claims out there but African studies programs for the most part don't teach the nonsense that people like Mary Lefkowitz have tried to debunk (e.g. Ancient Greeks stealing their culture from Ancient Egyptians). Pseudoscience akin to Rushton's work would be something like Melanin theory, which is not commonly taught in Universities.

 

https://right.orain.org/wiki/Boasian_pseudo-anthropology

 

I take it that most of the argument here is being evinced by the idea that one or the other study is "proving" blacks, as a group, to have lower intelligence than whites.

My question is, even if it is true, SO WHAT?

That is, what are you proposing we should DO with this info?

 

Lots. Ending genocidal anti White mass immigration for starters.

 

Isn't there a board rule against idiotic posts like this? Pity.

 

If there was you wouldn't have many left.

 

Your posts are completely mindless and add nothing. I will report them. We will let moderators see whose posts have no meaningful content.

 

go for it, the fact is that your comment of

is about as mindless as can be, hence why it caused me to burst out laughing.

 

On another message board I got in to a debate with racists, including our very own Empress, about the same topic of this thread. In the debate one of the posters claimed that r/K selection theory had been modified rather than discarded. They cited the article below as their evidence:

r - AND K-SELECTION REVISITED: THE ROLE OF POPULATION REGULATION IN LIFE-HISTORY EVOLUTION Ecology,
83(6), 2002, pp. 1509–1520

I decided to email the lead author of the study for comment on Rushton's work and the general application of r/K selection to humans. This is his reply:

So there you have it. Reznick says essentially the same thing that Graves said about r/K selection theory. Components of it were incorporated in to a Life History paradigm but the theory was overly simplistic and did not fit what we observe in nature. Moreover Reznick is not familiar with Rushton (not surprising as Rushton is not an evolutionary biologist whose work has any relevance to the field) and does not believe that r/K selection is applicable to humans. I would like to invite Empress who claims to have an extensive educational background in biology to respond to these comments. Oh I almost forgot she doesn't comment on Rushton. How about Mikemikev, wait he's banned. Rayznack? Would any other Rushton supporters like to comment on this? Empress maybe you would like to invite Zed to the forum so we can continue our debate.

 

You had your chance with Zed at SI where you chose you increase personal attacks to the point of intentionally getting yourself banned. If he wishes to come here, that's his choice.

But suffice it to say that it's not particularly impressive that you would copy/paste correspondence from people you like as a means of trying to establish scientific facts, when it's already been shown the flaws in the arguments of people such as Graves and Nisbett. Such emails from these people are only going to reproduce their own misconstrued ideas and not hash out the truth of the matter, which is what scientific literature is for that establishes consensus on a given topic. By posting emails from these people, you're merely reproducing and repeating whatever errors their positions may entail.

That is why people question your scientific background. We see little to nothing in terms of independent study from you that indicates you have learned much outside of these emails and have any concept of what the established consensus is.

It seems your main strategy is to pick someone who says what you like and then use their writings. When someone takes issue you then email that author and throw the emails into the debate thread. The end.

 

So basically you can't discuss the arguments of Reznick despite your alleged background in biology. That's not a surprise. The purpose of emails like these is to show that my arguments are correct. I said on Stumbleinn that components of r/K selection were incorporated in to a Life History paradigm but that the actual theory was discredited. Zed and Mikemikev objected to this. Reznick's email verifies my stance is correct. I'm enhancing debate by posting these emails showing that the authors agree with me. That actually ends the debate when the opponent's interpretation of an article or study is proven to be incorrect.

 

My biology background is pathology and physiology. Your biology background is nil which is why you always paste emails and mass market paperbacks. I wouldn't know about Reznick's email considering your penchant for confirmation bias in your source selection. The purpose of the emails is that they along with the books authored by the same circle of people are repetitions of your mass market books. Textbooks on the topic? I've seen not one from you. We certainly don't learn what the consensus is from your posts. Just the views of your specific set of sources, such as with psychology.

Nothing you said here discredited anything I said regarding your MO here.

 

You're not saying anything of substance. You don't know how to respond to the argument and resort to personal attacks.

 

There are no personal attacks. I was stating your methodology. What is your biology background in terms of education? On this, you've been elusive.

I am and have been agnostic on the biology arguments, having no opinion either way. On psychology, I was agnostic on the black/white IQ issue until I began taking college psychology courses and learned of the high heritability of IQ and the other discoveries of twin longevity studies. In spite of this, you have repeatedly lobbed "racist" personal attacks at me when my position comes from my psychology professors and textbooks and not some racial beliefs.

Your MO is to paste selections from books you like and then defend them with emails from the authors of the books reasserting what they wrote in the books. That's pretty much all you do. As I said when you do that, we don't get information on the scientific consensus on the topic but rather the views of those people who may or may not be littered with mistakes or half-truths. I said nothing inaccurate about your methodology on these threads.

 

Are you denying that you are a racist? If so, you've lost all credibility on that claim with your racist insults on Stumbleinn and elsewhere. You are a racist and you have a racist agenda for claiming that there are racial differences in intelligence. I took elective courses in college including biology, psychology, history and anthropology. These classes were unrelated to my major, I simply took them because I wanted to learn more about these subjects. Among the subjects that came up during my studies were Life History Theory and Differential Psychology which I have been discussing on these boards for years as well as in private with experts. If I were not in the slightest bit scientifically literate I would not even get replies to these emails. Did you ever think of that?

For example I read the article that Zed cited from Wikipedia and made an argument right there on the board disputing his claim. I then emailed Joseph Graves and David Reznick for comment and both of them made statements consistent with what I said on the board. That's not confirmation bias. That's verifying the position of a source through personal communication. That's the next best thing to being an expert yourself, which I'm not but I at least know what I'm talking about.

As far as your position coming from psychology professors and textbooks is concerned, name one textbook you have that states that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. That is what we are really discussing here. This subject can be addressed from an evolutionary genetic perspective or a psychometric perspective. I have argued both ways that there is no evidence for a genetic component to racial differences in IQ. I cited the American Psychological Association for scientific consensus on the subject. I referred you to a lecture by a Yale professor who made the same arguments. I referred you to an excerpt from a book by Joseph Graves making the same arguments. The high heritability of IQ and the fact that intelligence runs in families is NOT evidence that group differences in IQ have a genetic component.

So until you provide a source with relevant quotes showing evidence that there is a genetic component to racial differences in IQ you have not made a positive argument.

 

You call people who believe that their professors tell them racists and then yell at them that their beliefs mean they "should be killed." You have done that to me alone twice in the past week. I could have easily taken that as a threat and notified the police.

I have no racist agenda whatsoever. My issue in discussing this topic anywhere is because I am tired of my people being eternally scapegoated for black and brown failure. My simple assertion is this: Be decent enough to look in the mirror first for potential causes and contributors before blaming whites. What is going on instead is blaming whites to the exclusion of anything else. We are not here to be your scapegoats.

Your problem is that you can't deal with people who disagree with you as individuals without labeling them in demonizing, demeaning, dehumanizing terms. As you've repeatedly done this to me and others, we have returned fire in kind. Hope you liked it.

I don't believe for a minute you have any relevant background in these sciences. You lack basic knowledge of the high heritability of adult IQ. That is freshman-level psychology yet you act unsure and unwilling to concede this basic point regardless of how many texts I post that say so. Had you the relevant background on heritability of IQ, it seems to me that reading Nisbett's work would have caused you pause. It didn't.

Right because they're your favorite sources and lacking background of your own, you argue through them and their writings. You present their books, once contested, you email them and then throw the emails at people. I've yet to see anything from you showing the scientific consensus on any given topic you've argued. Most of your sources - if not all - are agenda-driven activists with a drum to beat.

The books state adult IQ is highly inherited and that intelligence runs in families and in some cases there are large group differences in IQ. It's not hard to put together. There not need be specifically be the word "racial" in there. Do we ultimately know exactly how much of adult IQ is environmentally-influenced? No - but it's in the small minority as the older a person gets, the more their behavior and intelligence come from their genetic makeup instead of their environment.

If you're now admitting there really IS a high heritability of adult IQ and that intelligence runs in families, you're indirectly admitting that Nisbett is being dishonest in his thesis that adult IQ is heavily influenced by the environment. If that's the case, please stop using him. As far as I recall, Graves had also tried to invoke this false claim as well.

I don't see how the results of twin studies can be discussed let alone debunked from a biological perspective. Graves doesn't conduct these studies. He's not trained to.

You can go in circles with semantics all you want. In the end of the day, adult IQ is highly genetic, intelligence runs in families, and there is a large IQ gap between whites and blacks that persists. THAT is what science says. Not me.

I never said "IQ difference is because of race." I said IQ gaps exist between blacks and whites and adult IQ is heavily genetic, runs in families, and the gap isn't closing. In that sense, it could be easily inferred that ancestry has a role since family extends to tribe which extends to ethnicity. We certainly have ample evidence of different ancestral groups having different health vulnerabilities and responses to medications, so there is certainly an indicator there of genetic differences between population groups. The genetic component is that IQ is highly genetic and runs in families. It's that simple.

Your argument has shifted with the four winds. You first tried to argue that IQ is equal. When that failed, you tried to argue that the gap exists but is closing and is all caused by environment anyway. Now you seem to have conceded the large environmental impact in adult IQ is bogus, so I guess this is your fall back position. Whether or not scientists specifically say "racial" doesn't have much relevance. If it's mostly genetic and inherited...

And these positional changes of yours have all emerged from my presentation of data. Again, that means you have no background in this at all - and when I say background, I mean a formal one on a college campus in class. Not reading mass market paperbacks and saving crusty old emails.

The environmental argument is not only scientifically false but strongly hints at externalizing blame to white people. I strongly take issue with that, and as long as I and people of my heritage are attacked and blamed, those who do it will continue to hear from me.

 

Excuse me, but last time I checked, heritability was a statistic used for within-population comparisons. That a given trait could have "high heritability" within one population doesn't necessarily vindicate your assertions about differences between populations.

---The problem with heritability

 

Here is another email from Dr. Reznick:

So Reznick approves of Graves' critique and says that Rushton misrepresented his work. Yet again Rushton is caught making mistakes. He wasn't qualified to do this type of research and through his error his work served racist ideological agendas.

 

There hasn't been any worthwhile testing of IQ and racial differences since the 21st Century began.

Real testing worthy of the scientific method would require blinded testing of thousands of subjects.

Subjects would have to be as randomized as possible using a true sample population derived from phone directories, and inmate populations at prisons and mental hospitals.

Subjects would provide a DNA sample from cheek swaps.

They would have MRI's done to map brain morphology.

They would take at least a digit-span test or other non-cultural intelligence test as a baseline, and do full IQ testing from there.

They would take test subjects at least between 20 to 40 years of age.

A demographic and personal history should also be provided.

Holistic IQ testing as described above HAVE NOT been done because pseudo-scientists and others like the OP himself would of course cry "racism!"

If holistic IQ testing is ever done, it will probably give the same results as the old Minnesota Transracial Adoption Studies showing: that IQ is 80% inheritance and 20% environmental.

 

Even if holistic IQ testing is ever done, what would the results matter anyway?

If 1st-world nations are pretending to be civilized, the citizens should still get a fair chance at life based on merit and the ability to sell their abilities to employers. IQ test results were used to tell us (students) what our potential in life would be. Students who didn't score high had serious blows to their self-esteem. Now that I'm reflecting on that experience, I believe it was intentional.

Anyway, I guess my ultimate question in this post is what are the non-nefarious reasons for assessing a population's IQ?

 

I note thel eft has failed to condemn the openly racist pseudoscience found in the USA undoubtedly because it is preached in 'black studies'.

 

If the Earth was flat, as believed 500 years ago, then what would it matter sailing far when you would just drop off the edge of the Earth?

I think you already know what the outcome of these racial IQ tests would show, so you have little desire to see them properly ran.

The truth isn't very bright and shiny and lots of popular myths about equality that say "you can become or do anything you want if...." will be disproven. The reason why modern DNA-based holistic IQ testing has not been done in the Western World lately is because of political realities. You must understand that lower-tier academic areas such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics that run IQ testing are completely and absolutely controlled by Leftist and liberals. They are all about selling the nurture story. This to promote multiculturalism, social justice and a strong central and world government. They can't sell their snake oil to everyone when science shows that some people are naturally one or two standard deviations above or below others.

I was a student too, so spare me on being upset on what tests show about one's potential. In Western civilization, colleges and so many careers must know how trainable one is to do the work. Those who want to study more difficult subjects in high demand institutions must or should have high SAT and ACT scores. If those who fail get their feeling hurt, then boo hoo. Suck it up and drive on doing something one can do, whether it's being a garbage man, operating a backhoe, working in a bank or so on.

The ultimate answer is that holistic, modern DNA-based IQ testing would allow modern societies to move more out of the Dark Ages and have a greater understanding of the world's peoples. It would also bring to halt the untenable demands that so many public schools raise their test scores, when they don't have the genetic assets to do so. What's worse is that in my state, principals and teacher have been caught inflating the test scores of their students to get more government money into their own pockets.