What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?

It's accepted as fact that there is such a thing as IQ gaps between populations. There isn't even a debate on whether or not the IQ gap exists in scientific circles.

 

he didnt.

 

Exactly. The burden of proof lies on the so-called "race realists" since they are the ones asserting an innate intellectual difference between human populations from different continents. It may be true that certain European and Afro-Diasporan groups show differences on IQ tests, but it doesn't necessarily follow that these have to stem from evolved cognitive differences between European and African populations. It's not even certain at this stage whether Neanderthals were much less intelligent than Homo sapiens, and they're much more divergent from our lineage than African and European modern humans are (we are of course not factoring in the minor admixture that some Eurasians have received from Neanderthals and kin).

Frankly this whole hypothesis of racial differences in intelligence is nothing more than a vestige of pseudo-scientific racism devised to rationalize the historical subordination of African people. Its current proponents might portray themselves as champions of science and realism, but in the end their cause is just as outdated as astrology or phrenology, and much more socially toxic.

 

My whole point is that anyone who believes that ANY trait that any select racial group can inherit that can give any superior advantage is a racist.

You believe the basic scientific facts that Black's skin have superior UV protection----that means you are a racist. Same thing for running, jumping and IQ advantages.

As far as school funding goes---I don't work and have never worked for public schools. I'm not a Socialist, and therefore want K-12 education to be under the sole control and funding from the school's local tax base. Federal (National) control should be abolished. State control should be limited or non-existant.

 

Every form of intelligence testing that has ever been devised tested in every scenario to date.

 

Care to back that up by answering the OP?

Remember, I never made an assertion; I'm asking for evidence for a belief.

 

What's funny is that your article claims (based off Gould's fraudulent data) that Morton's errors were toward his supposed personal bias when in fact his error has been shown to be away from his personal bias - his African skull measurements were smaller after re-measuring than what he reported.

Needless to say, I didn't bother reading any further from that garbage article by Leonard Lieberman, or the rest of your post.

 

I'm aware of the recent study defending Morton's research. I've emailed the scholars themselves. Lieberman's study is not garbage, he refuted Rushton point by point. Is there a reason why you bolded Lieberman that you would like to share with us?

As for not reading the rest of my post you must not be capable of being objective because I answered your OP in detail.

 

Having glanced at your OP, I see you did make an assertion. That assertion was that several lines of data (none of which you properly cited, I observe) support your beliefs.

Why did you bold his surname? Why would a guy's surname invalidate his argument?

 

There "may" be differences in IQ averages? This only shows how little you've read on the topic. As I've said before and I'll say again. Anything, anywhere that shows differences/unequal outcomes is going to be blamed on white hocus pocus in one manner or another, either in rigging the IQ tests to put forth a racist end OR in that white racism is the cause of the unequal IQ tests.

Take away the white bogeyman and what have you?

 

Gould was outed a fraud already. Why anyone would use that guy is beyond me.

Stephen Jay Gould mismeasured skulls in racial records dispute

The late scientific icon, Stephen Jay Gould, botched and perhaps faked his critique of a racist 19th-Century scientist's skull collection, suggests a second look at his efforts...

So, the study team remeasured the skulls collected by Morton, now owned largely by the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia.

Overall, they find, Morton did make mistakes in measuring skull capacity (he first stuffed them with seeds, and later lead shot to measure their brain size). But the mistakes were random. The random mistakes didn't favor any racial theory of larger brain sizes for white people over others...

Morton neither manipulated his skull samples, unfairly selected which data to report, skewed results by gender, or ignored his mistakes to favor racist interpretations of his skulls, the PLoS Biology study authors conclude -- all charges made by Gould against the long-dead physician.

What's more, the researchers found Gould made some mistakes in his re-analysis of Morton. "Our analysis of Gould's claims reveals that most of Gould's criticisms are poorly supported or falsified," they conclude:


Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that ''unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth''. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in ''science studies''. But our results falsify Gould's hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

 

The long history of oppression and alienation directed at Afro-Diasporans is no bogeyman. If you truly want a basic overview of the topic of institutional racism (present as well as past) and its effects on African-Americans, I highly recommend this book:


Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat From Racial Equity
Purchase it here

(Admittedly it doesn't cover the specific topic of IQ so much, but it does cover the kind of socioeconomic inequality postulated to explain your beloved IQ gap)

 

So what was Jay saying in those 2 posts that got him deleted? More race baiting, I would imagine?

 

This part of your post is especially pathetic. You're basically saying that because something may produce unwanted results, it's therefore "outdated" (appeal to novelty fallacy) and "socially toxic" (as if being offensive should ever be a guide in what should or should not be studied in science). What is this supposed to tell us? Yes, we see you are angered and offended.

And?

 

I have no idea. It says I violated Rule 8 which is attacking the moderation staff. I did no such thing.

 

It's outdated because the scientific community writ large, especially the bio-anthropological one, has examined the claim and found it wanting a long time ago. Have you not read Jay's entry post? The article by Lieberman may mention Gould, but doesn't depend on him at all if you actually read it in full. As for the socially toxic part, of course a debunked and incorrect hypothesis invented to rationalize oppression is inherently immoral and dangerous.

 

Lieberman's paper is garbage. He confuses various 'hierachies' (intelligence and cranial volume) throughout history in his main table in an attempt to show that ordering is arbitrary. But there is no disagreement using modern data of where populations fall on both measures.

 

Evolution only affects things that matter in a given environment. Most traits of a given species remain unchanged for long periods of time, if there is no evolutionary pressure to change them.

For instance, despite all those thousands of years of semi-divergent evolution, we all still have the same number and kinds of teeth, still have the same number of fingers and finger joints, etc.

For intelligence to differ significantly between groups in such a short evolutionary timeframe, there would need to have been very heavy evolutionary pressure favoring rapid development of higher intelligence in one of the semi-isolate groups. There does not seem to have been any such thing.

 

The purpose of Lieberman's table is to show a changing in racial hierarchies over time. The reason for doing this is to show that the hierarchies or lack there of depend on the methodology of the researcher. He concludes that there are no racial hierarchies in cranial capacity and presents very good evidence supporting his claim.

 

To be fair, there is such a thing as genetic drift, which is when a population's gene frequencies change by chance developments rather than selection. So far none of the "race realists" like Rushton and his fans have thought to invoke this though.

 

And we also still have two eyes. What does this prove? In fact we do not have the same kinds of teeth. A variant of EDAR mutated in East Asia a few thousand years ago and has spread rapidly within East Asians, producing straight hair, shovel teeth, and various skin changes.

No. Alleles with a selective advantage of a few percent (relative to other alleles) would spread to fixation within a few thousand years. An allele giving a couple of IQ points advantage would be in this area.

http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.w...-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf

Some alleles that seem to have done this are those of ASPM, MCPH, FOXP2. Some of these are thought to have been acquired from Neanderthals in Eurasia ~40,000 years ago.

 

"What evidence exists that Blacks and Whites have equal intelligence?"

cause we have smart white and black people
and dumb white and black people....

 

Yes, but there is an average difference.

 

Based on IQ tests, which are culturally biased to begin with. IQ scores have been increasing as a whole, mainly because people are better TRAINED on how to take those kinds of tests. I'd hardly call that "scientific."

You haven't been able to cite one. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to determine if the results of the tests are genetic vs. cultural (nature vs. nurture). The evidence currently leads towards cultural.

You are the one making the claim that white people are smarter than black people. The burden of proof is on you.

This is the problem with your argument:

I believe X to be true.
Prove to me X is wrong.

Your initial logic is based on your own belief so what is the point of bothering to "prove" anything to you. If you make a hypothesis, you must back it up with your own evidence. A hypothesis is not a fact or law; it must be proven.

There is also a significant average difference in IQ between "Liberal" states and "conservative" states. Am I supposed to believe people who are liberal were just born with superior intelligence? Granted, I'm a lib, so it would make me feel better.. but I don't think there is any scientific merit to it. IQ tests are cultural, not evolutionary.

 

True, but for that to happen don't you need a fairly small and isolated population? Otherwise the chance changes are unlikely to spread throughout the population (as they confer no reproductive advantage).