Why race and IQ studies are useless.

Racists have higher oxytocin AKA the love hormone, while sociopaths have lower oxytocin AKA the love hormone.

So, by this information how could all racists be inherently evil?

 

I did respond to you exposing your ignorance of quantitative genetics. Lewontin's genetic arguments are relevant and still taught in Psychology classes today which I clearly proved.

Maybe you didn't see the post on Youtube. But I posted it here and you didn't give a proper response.

Well that's what you get for spamming. If you knew how to debate properly I wouldn't have asked for your posts to be deleted.

I have told you repeatedly that when I am finished reading Nisbett's book I am going to reply to the Lee article as well as the Rushton and Jensen article. But you aren't giving me a chance to make the thread. You just want to discourage me from citing Nisbett so you can feel like you scored a debate point. Wait until I make the damn thread!

You don't know me and you don't know what I've studied. The lone textbook that I kept was written by my professor and quoting it would give away the location of the college I attended. So I will use it for reference material on the subject of Psychology but I'm not quoting it. If you want to test my knowledge of the field I welcome you to do that.

I think the truth is that you are threatened by me. You want to claim that you have formal education on this subject so you can claim to be more knowledgeable and my own education challenges that. So you don't want to believe I have attended college and taken Psychology classes because it makes you feel inadequate.

Nisbett probably doesn't have time to both with ever critic in the field of Psychology. He made his arguments and has allowed the Scientific Community to judge him. He is a distinguished Professor with a good reputation. The only outspoken critics are racists on the internet who don't like his conclusions on race and IQ. Lee is not a well known scholar.

Rushton didn't reply to a detailed critique of his evolutionary arguments even though Graves debated him in person and wrote two articles as a rebuttal.

Rushton did respond to some critics but when the critiques got too hard for him he ignored them.

You asked me for one book I gave it to you. I'm sure I could find more. Whether I used the book in college or not is not relevant.

Can you provide proof that what was actually quoted was false information?

I haven't ducked anything. You want a proper debate? Then stop spamming "Nisbett is debunked" and wait for me to make a new thread directly addressing these criticisms.

You're the one howling. Instead of spamming threads you should wait until I make a new thread about this subject. I have to read an entire book and respond to two articles. Give it time.

I never claimed that.

Those are two of the most popular message boards in White Nationalist circles and if you go through the links in the Google Search you will see that there are a lot more which feature White Nationalists making genocidal comments about Blacks.

No. Lewontin's Fallacy was the name of an article that has been discredited (Graves, 2011).

Lewontin made genetic arguments about the role of genes and environment in determined IQ which I discussed in this post.

 

Not many people out there deny that environment impacts IQ.

However, there's still disparities in IQ even when you account for environment.

As I pointed out Qatar scores a measly 78 IQ, which is more typical to their people, rather than their wealth, and educational opportunities.

Is it really so hard to believe, that natural selection pushed people in Northern Europe, and North Asia to be more intelligent to survive the ice age?

I mean, the IQ, and PISA scores both definitely show a higher level of intellect in the North lands.

 

As if there are no Whites who are subject to discrimination in the U.S.A?

As a Polish American, from an Italian American dominated neighborhood I beg to differ.

I've experienced prejudices for being of Polish heritage, and I know people here who've also experienced prejudices for being of Italian heritage.

Of course, Polish, and Italians are the biggest victims of prejudices in modern Hollywood, and the media, not Blacks, nor Hispanics.

Polish Americans, and Italian Americans actually have higher incomes than average White Americans.

Polish Americans also have quite higher college degree attainment, and IQ scores than the average White American too.

 

I'm not familiar with Qatar. When was the IQ of the nation studied? By whom? What tests were administered? What is the education level of the average citizen? All of these things have to be taken in to account when you look at IQ. Richard Lynn's research for example on global IQ score is highly suspect (Wicherts, 2009). The evolutionary arguments concerning the superior intelligence of Northern Europeans and Northeast Asians has been thoroughly refuted (Graves, 2002). One example that contradicts this racial argument is the fact that the ancestors of Native Americans should have been living under the same conditions that supposedly gave Northeast Asians their superior intelligence. Native Americans are the most recent derivative population of Northeast Asians yet they have lower IQs, live in poverty and have lower cultural achievements. David Suzuki brought this up in his debate with Rushton.

Polish and Italians while no doubt experiencing discrimination in America have assimilated in to Whiteness. Blacks can not do that because of phenotypic differences. I doubt a White American of Anglo-Saxon descent can tell you are Polish unless they hear your name (assuming it is Polish) and even then they are far less likely to discriminate against you than they are a Black American.

 

Qatar has one of the highest per capita income GDP on the entire planet, thanks in part to being oil rich.

The IQ scores of Qatar come from Richard Lynn indeed, the guy who first found the Flynn effect.

What's wrong with Richard Lynn? The biggest criticism I've seen is mostly just on Nigeria's IQ, which it's claimed some IQ tests put the IQ of Nigeria to the mid 80's.

But, even so, the non-controversial PISA scores show Qatar still is measly, as Qatar has been at the bottom of PISA scores rankings.

How come?

Why isn't Qatar intellectually on par with it's wealth?

 

U.S.A Native Americans hardly live in poverty, compared to those Chinese living in China.

Yet, China scores a high IQ, and also high PISA scores.

Native Americans don't have brains so big like East Asians, nor as brachycephalic which brachycephalic brains are proportionately more frontal brain dominant, the more advanced part of the brain.

Also, Native Americans have a lot more obesity than East Asians, which is indicative of them most likely having slower metabolisms, which is also linked to lower intellectual function.

 

How do you know this?

I could argue the exact opposite, that people like Polish, and Italians are more typical victims of prejudices.

Why?

No sensitivity training towards our prejudices, no widely publicized Polish, or Italian history months to equalize our achievements, and far less worry of getting hate crimes, lawsuits, or getting beat up for being prejudiced against as well.

While, it would be very difficult to prove this, or disprove this.

One thing is clear, Hollywood, and the media are far more prejudiced against Polish, and Italians than against Blacks, or Hispanics.

 

In the United States, the Polish and Italians go under the "White" racial category. For those who don't like it, they can call themselves an "Other."

It seems to me like you have an issue with being grouped with "Whites" instead of having that racial class broken out into ethnic European groups.

 

It seems many people think it's okay to belittle Polish, and Italians because they fall under the White category including the media, and Hollywood.

Polish are more indigenous to Europe than Western Europeans are by genetics overall.

But, yeah I sort of have a problem with being linked in with Western European madness, from racist colonialism, to anti-racist multiculturalism there's very little I agree with them on.

 

I know many ethnic Europeans who feel the same way you do. Personally, I wouldn't be against any movement that seeks to sever the ties between those who wish to retain their ancestral identity and that of the "White" identity. If anything, I may even support it.

 

America is anti-nationalism, it's where you go to destroy your ethnic heritage, in favor of Capitalist values.

When my Polish ancestors came here, there was no Poland, so I think they just wanted to have less oppression.

But, I for one do not agree with throwing away our ethnic heritage.

 

@PolakPotrafi: I will respond to your comments later, perhaps tomorrow if I have time.

@Empress: I did some more research on Nisbett being cited in college textbooks. Here are 10 college textbooks that cite him. Yes, all of this research was done on the internet but the point is that Nisbett is a credible scholar whose research is accepted in academia.

1) Introduction to Psychology 10th Edition by By Rod Plotnik and Haig Kouyoumdjian

2) Psychology: Themes and Variations 9th Edition by Wayne Weiten

3) Clinical Psychology: Science, Practice, and Culture, Third Edition DSM-5 Update by Andrew M. Pomerantz

4) Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding 2nd Edition Scott Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Laura Namy, Nancy Woolf, Graham Jamieson, Anthony Marks, Virginia Slaughter

5) Psychology 6th Edition by James S. Nairne

6) Clinical Psychology 8th Edition by Timothy J. Trull and Mitch Prinstein

7) Introduction to Psychology 11th Edition by James W. Kalat

8) Psychology: Themes and Variations 10th Edition by Wayne Weiten

9) The Elements of Mental Tests 2nd Edition by John D. Mayer

10) Cognitive Development: Infancy Through Adolescence 2nd Edition by Kathleen M. Galotti

That should put the matter to bed concerning Nisbett's use as a source in academia. He is a credible scholar whose research is cited by several college textbooks and whose book Intelligence and How to Get It is cited by hundreds of publications. The only people who attack Nisbett's credibility seem to be racists who don't like his conclusions on the environmental impact on group differences in IQ.

I'm going to finish reading his book then I will make a new thread responding to Lee (2010) as well as Rushton and Jensen (2010). I put it off for so long because you kept disappearing from the board and I had other things to do. But it is time to address this once and for all. Then we will see what level of debate you can offer in defense of these critiques.

 

Let me repeat: The Lee review of Nisbett's bad work addressed this issue. You have neither read the review nor addressed the issue even though you are here claiming you have enough knowledge of it to address the issue.

I gave you a citation from a current psychology textbook and you dismissed it as "old," and you are still ignoring that and trying to claim your data from the 1990s has more validity.

Yet again I have to point out that you are discussing this topic in bad faith and are trying to erect different and higher standards of evidence for your opponent than you have for yourself.

Who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*)? A side issue post of mine does not equal your ducking on defending the single person that is most important to your entire thesis and purpose for online activism: Richard Nisbett.

The guy who is your foundation cannot defend his work against critics, and yes when you want to be taken as a credible scholar, you HAVE TO answer to it. Why would anyone take seriously a guy who can't defend his work from attacks on his basic methodology except someone with a confirmation bias issue and a drum to beat?

So you admit all of my posts are no longer here and thus you have no legitimate basis to claim I "ducked" anything. I wasn't spamming in the least - this is just your latest excuse. I was harsh in some posts which also contained a lot of information and for that you flagged me repeatedly.

And since countless of YOUR posts have been deleted, then you need to take your own advice and learn how to debate properly.

Yeah you said that ~2 years ago. You've had countless chances.

I expect you to defend sources that you use, especially when the source is such a level of importance that it underlies your entire argument of the IQ being of environmental reasons and that it's closing.

And you can't.

As I said, I go by how you act, what you say, and what you present as sources. The one book you presented a couple days ago was from Google Books. I found the specific citation. You'd never have posted that source if it wasn't on Google Books because you don't own a single textbook on the field in your home, and never have.

Actually I think much if not all of your glorious Huxtable resume is complete garbage. If you took psych, you wouldn't be making so many basic blunders. Puffing your feathers and doing a peacock strut does not compensate for that.

Nisbett didn't say that. He just got snarky and dropped the subject. Again, Rushton responded to his critics. Nisbett has time to type you these inane emails you've been copy-pasting for years. He has the time. Anyone that wants to be taken seriously in academia needs to defend their papers. After all, that's how you get a PhD to begin with. Duh.

Tarring critics as "outspoken racists" is a blatant lie. You didn't even know Lee or other scholars who have debunked his data even existed until I presented them, and now you want to play make-believe they're all part of an overarching racist conspiracy.

No - Nisbett's work is just indefensible crap and he knows it.

Further, you keep changing your excuses for Nisbett. Previously on this thread you cast Nisbett as an incorrigible snob:

What papers? "Articles" aren't scholarly papers that researchers would respond to. If Nisbet can't be troubled to respond to a scholarly paper by another PhD in psychology, why would Rushton have been expected to reply to "an article" by someone? Double standard much?

If you're going to assert that non-response to a critic's paper is that it was "too hard for him," then the same goes for Nisbett. Just saying.

Rushton also did his own review of Nisbett's notorious book. http://philipperushton.net/wp-conte...ohn-Philippe-Rushton-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf

The author clearly took the book as valid on face value, because

1) The Lee review which touches on the foundational conclusions of Nisbett's entire thesis.
2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963425

You've been ducking for 2 years. I'm not spamming when I counter your mentions of Nisbett with your inability to defend his poor methods and conclusions and ask you to please do so if you want to continue to cite him. You bring him up, not me.

I'm not "waiting" for you while you continue to "spam" Nisbett garbage all over the place and feel free to question the validity of sources presented to you but then do the thumb-sucking routine when your own sources are questioned because you can't defend them.

I told you to feel free to post the Nisbett thread and you have ducked out on that, too.

I'm not howling or spamming, and as long as you continue to use Nisbett, I'm going to keep on about it. It's up to you. I'm not going to allow you to use bad sources and run con on people here. Stop peddling a rock in a box and I won't call you out for it.

And they're two forums full of fringe idiots. You tried to pretend that all of the mentions on Google Search were from those people. Unless you can show 300,000+ mentions from those sites, you have no argument.

Yep, though you shouldn't mention that to the liberals because they still cling to that article.

I already addressed that in several places. As I said, plants aren't good examples of humans. Black kids reared in affluent white homes have IQs like their biological black parents, not the adoptive parents, etc.

You're again trying to blame white people for bad black IQ scores.

 

IQ measurement is very important to our society/economics. There have been whines and crying about them being biased against some minorities/races. People who say that don't even understand the real purpose for testing from the get go.

IQ and achievement tests and survey exist to determine how well individuals have prepared for the real world. Those who prefer to determine how much you know about your own culture overlook the fact that the MAINSTREAM ECONOMY is the one we have, and the test is to determine if one is prepared for it. Cultural snobs will never understand the need for assimilation of minorities into mainstream cultural and economic condition in the society in which we live.

 

The issue with variations of IQ between different cultural orientations is not about who is more intelligent. It is about how culture improves ones state in actual society and which do not.

 

I never hid the fact that I got the quote from Google Books. Notice I also cited 10 more. If you had seriously looked for references to Nisbett's work in academic books like you claimed you would have found them too. So you lied when you said you looked. I seriously doubt you own many books on this subject and you don't know what books I own. You're just making assumption.

I haven't made any blunders. You are just ranting about the same old garbage.

Graves wrote two scholarly papers that critiqued Rushton's arguments. You are playing word games and committing the distinction without a difference fallacy.

http://guides.library.cornell.edu/scholarlyjournals

DEFINITIONS: Scholarly or peer-reviewed journal articles are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their fields. In the sciences and social sciences, they often publish research results.

Graves is an expert in his field and he showed that Rushton didn't know what he was talking about when it comes to Life History Theory.

You could say that but it is also possible that Nisbett wasn't even aware of Lee's article until I brought it to his attention.

I'm aware of that which is why my thread is going to feature critiques of both Lee and Rushton's articles.

You're not directly addressing the quote. How was the citation supporting the author's claim false? You might as well respond to the 10 other quotes while you are at it.

When I make the thread you are not going to have anything to say. You won't offer a rebuttal and you will drop your attacks on Nisbett. You may even disappear from the board. That is my prediction.

Stop lying. I presented the Google Search results to show that many people were talking about it not to say that all people who discuss it are White Nationalists. White Nationalists in general are fringe idiots so you are making a moot point. The fact is that a lot more talk about sterilizing and killing Blacks then you are suggesting.

Liberals cling to the article? I'm talking about the actual article named Lewontin's Fallacy. Racists reference this article every time it is mentioned that there is more genetic variation within populations than between them. Graves and others debunked this article.

You just confirmed that your best argument against Lewontin's genetic reasoning is that plants are not humans. This shows that you really don't understand quantitative genetics.

In order to infer genetic causality from the comparison of phenotypes exhibited by different genotypes those genotypes need to be reared in the same environment. The reason is simple. Two different genotypes can have the same genetic potential and yet exhibit different phenotypes because of differences in environment. Lewontin's example of identical sets of plants raised in different environments was to show that even with the same genes you can have different outcomes in phenotype. In this case the phenotype is the growth of the plants.




This logic can be applied to the genetics of humans. If you have two groups with the same genetic potential they can exhibit a different phenotype (ex. intelligence) because they have been reared in different environments. The Yale Professor used Lewontin's example as well as his own example of two groups of students being given tests that differ in difficulty to show that while heritability for a trait like intelligence may be great within a population this gives no indication of the cause of differences between groups. You have to equalize the environment between the groups to make legitimate phenotypic comparisons.

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study that you are referencing was methodologically flawed to the extent that its conclusions aren't clear enough to support an environmental or genetic interpretation.
On the other hand we have a lot of evidence from the scientific literature indicating that the Black-White IQ gap is entirely caused by the environment.

White Supremacists who made laws enforcing racist discrimination are responsible for low Black IQ scores. Not even hereditarians deny an environmental component to the Black-White IQ gap they just insist that it is partially genetic also. That claim has been debunked.

 

There is a big difference between learned knowledge and intelligence.

By and by level of intelligence are the same in all race groups.

AA

 

Nobody disputed that it's possible for the environment to have an effect. The dispute is that environmental variables can explain consistent race differences. Which environmental variables are causing Blacks everywhere to have low IQs, and Asians everywhere to have high IQs?

 

The idea that there are consistent racial differences in IQ has been refuted. This claim only appears valid when you selectively cite data to fit your racial matrix while ignoring contradictory evidence (confirmation bias) as Rushton and other hereditarians have done. We don't actually need to know the nature of the environment to establish that one or multiple variables are causing an environmental difference. All we need to do to determine that environment is 100% the cause of group differences in IQ is rule out a genetic component. In order to assess whether or not there is a genetic component you need to do one or all of the following 4 things:

1. Identify all of the genes that determine intelligence differences and show that these genes have a racial association.

2. Show that the totality of the scientific literature supports a genetic interpretation for the cause of IQ gaps.

3. Present a testable genetic hypothesis that can explain racial differences and show that it is empirically valid.

4. Create an experiment where all environmental variables are controlled for and show that there is still a racial difference in intelligence.

Scenario #1 would be very difficult to achieve because intelligence is a polygenic trait (Nisbett et al. 2012). Since many genes contribute to intelligence identifying all of them and showing a difference would be hard but it has already been shown with candidate genes that what we do know about genetic variation in human populations does not support a genetic model for the cause of racial differences in IQ (Graves, 2013). Scenario #2 has clearly been refuted (Nisbett, 2005). The bulk of scientific literature supports an environmental model for the cause of racial differences in IQ. Scenario #3 has been attempted and shown to be incorrect (Graves, 2002). Scenario #4 would also be difficult to achieve since there are psychological differences that impact IQ and controlling for racism would be hard but some research shows that controlling for multiple environmental variables can virtually eliminate gaps (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1996).

The scientific basis for postulating a genetic component to racial IQ gaps is simply not there and the fallacies of the hereditarian narrative have been explained by experts on evolutionary genetics.

 

Your thread is supposed to be about race and IQ---yet you mentioned nothing about your race, or any other statistical data point in your OP. Just because YOU may have a higher IQ and were self-taught does not mean that anyone and everyone can pick up calculus or engineering or other higher subject.

Only those with the inherited---or innate ability to well and excel in various disciplines can do this. Better studies show that intelligence is 80% genetic and 20% environmental.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html

 

Still slinging more disinformation? How is it every study since the mid-19th century has shown blacks having lower head, skull or brain size than whites?

Why did you ignore recent analysis on 14 known 'intelligence' genes that are all more prevalent with whites than blacks?

How is it European Jews have lower non-verbal or visual spatial ability than whites and Asians, but higher verbal reasoning and mathematical ability?

I see you also claimed human intelligence has not changed since the time humans left Africa in spite the mounds of studies to the contrary.

 

Thanks for the tl;dr essay but I just asked you which environmental variables were causing Black people everywhere to have low IQs. "I don't know" would have covered it.

 

We're still trying to find the mysterious environmental variable that follows East Asians around all over the world, no matter how much money they have, who their parents are, or where they live. Somehow, they just have a magical IQ fairy making sure they always outperform whites and blacks. Oh, and for some really strange reason, they only outperform whites on non-verbal tests, but not verbal tests. Somehow, they study just enough to be behind whites on verbal sections, soundly beat whites on non-verbal sections, but be ahead of every other race on verbal sections.

 

Nothing I said is false info.

This isn't true. Leonard Lieberman reviewed the scientific literature and showed that claims of racial hierarchy in brain size were invalid citing at least 10 sources that came to similar conclusions.

I didn't ignore it. I said I would try to get some geneticists to look at the Piffer study to comment on methodology and conclusions. I'm still working on that. I did point out that Joseph Graves, an expert on evolutionary genetics, came to different conclusions after analyzing 11 genes and their SNP's and finding that they did not show a racial association.

Differences in culture can impact differences in cognitive style.

Admittedly I need to do more research in this area as I've mainly focused on Black-White IQ differences. When I am finished reading Nisbett's book I will make a thread specifically about Asians and Jews as he dedicates entire chapters to discussing their intelligence.

What I'm saying is that humans became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa. Our general cognitive capacity evolved in Africa. Humans have been getting smarter due to the Flynn Effect so our intelligence is not the exact same as our ancestors however the cause of the Flynn Effect is environmental rather than evolutionary.

Now can you answer any of these questions?

If there is a highly consistent pattern of variables that form a racial matrix which can only being explained by genetic differences related to intelligence between races then you can surely address all of the points that do not fit the pattern. Otherwise it is reasonable to conclude that this racial matrix you and others claim is a myth that was developed and promoted through selectively citing data to fit your hypothesis and ignoring invalidating evidence (confirmation bias).

If you couldn't read that post because you thought it was too long then you have a short attention span. We do know of multiple environmental variables that depress IQ which are plausible reasons for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap. These variables include social discrimination (stereotype threat), malnutrition and environmental toxicity. For example in controlled studies it has been shown that stereotype threat impacts Black IQ (Steele and Aronson, 1995). Malnutrition at an early age can significantly affect cognitive ability leading to low IQs and cause behavior problems (Liu et al., 2004). Blacks are more malnourished than Whites (especially comparing Whites in Western countries vs. Africans) and suffer from toxins such as lead poisoning (Chiodo et al., 2007). There's also the issue of cultural bias of tests in Africa (Wicherts et al., 2009).

So we know what environmental variables are contributing to the Black-White IQ gap but my point was that we don't really need to know the specific variables to established that the gap is 100% caused by environment. Completely ruling out a genetic component establishes this.