Why race and IQ studies are useless.

How many times do I need to point out your dishonesty?

Two of your studies were by Gould and Tobias and they only modified previous studies based on assumption.

A third study by Beals shows that Whites have larger brain volume than Blacks yet you continue to use him as a source.

How credible are the other seven sources at this point?

If you don't mention an actual study on 'intelligence' linked gene frequency in whites and blacks then you are ignoring it.

Prove it. Show how Jewish culture accounts for low visual-spatial ability but significantly far higher mathematical and verbal reasoning ability.

That has nothing to do with what I asked. Prove that Northeast Asians have low verbal reasoning and high visual-spatial and mathematical ability, and European Jews have low visual-spatial and high mathematical and verbal reasoning ability due to their culture.

Explain how this affects Western raised Northeast Asians and secular European Jews to the same degree as Northeast Asians in Asia and religious European Jews.

How did you come to the conclusion intelligence has not biologically changed in the last 50,000 years?

Graves' arguments are beyond garbage. I find the fact you use them laughable.

Poland has a national IQ of 99. Graves nowhere cites data of Eastern Europeans in the West. If he is arguing against genetic differences I'd expect a more complete critique than he gives.

Graves is making an argument without critical thinking. This is a recurring problem for him.

Differences in IQ between North and South Asians may result from the genetic differences between the two populations.

Graves provides no data on the differences in intelligence-gene frequencies between the two groups.

He ignores brain volume differences between and North and South Asians that itself may indicate one possible cause for the IQ differences.

Nor does he offer a non-genetic explanation for the cause of the IQ difference.

This is Graves' dumbest argument.

It's difficult explaining why an argument is dumb to stupid people.

North Korea is run by a person claiming to be a deity. In spite of this, North Korea, totally isolated, has managed to create nuclear weapons far more stable nations are not remotely capable of achieving.

Native Americans are more closely related to Mongolians than Chinese, Japanese and Koreans.

Why is Graves building a strawman that intelligence is the only building block for civilization?

Graves is unable to identify environmental differences.

I could turn the same line of question around onto him.

How is it historically under-nourished Northeast Asians have far higher IQ than Whites and Blacks?

How is it Northeast Asians exposed to higher levels of lead, mercury and other heavy metals have higher IQ and lower crime rates than Whites and Blacks?

How is it 3rd generation Christian Koreans living in San Francisco, or malnourished Korean infants adopted to families in Belgium, the Netherlands or United States grow to have far higher IQ than Whites?

 

You have to prove American Blacks are malnourished when as children they are larger than White than Asian children.

Speaking of lead and heavy metal poisoning, Chinese are far more affected to metal toxicity than American Blacks are.

Use that brain you supposedly have and explain *how* Chinese have equivalent (and rising) IQ with Whites and far higher IQ than Blacks when they are more malnourished and have higher environmental toxicity?

And on 'stereotype threat':

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

 

I'm not sure why this has received so much attention here on PF. Brain-size studies are practically irrelevant either way. We have plenty of other data points to focus on before we need to do this to make our points. That being said, I find it dumbfounding and a little suspicious that this issue, which is easily resolved, has not been. As I suggested in the another thread, I have little hope that western countries have the scientific integrity, either way, to tackle it--this contentious debate proves it.

The old study and subsequent rebuttal, assuming it even was, does not rebut the Piffer study. However, my assumption is that the Piffer study will be discredited immediately, no matter how valid, because he is associated with Lynn. I have no doubts that this will become more conclusive over time, but our arguments need not rest on them for the time being.

This is tricky and a bit misleading. Humans did become anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa, but that is a very broad statement that was not intended to imply that population differences haven't, or couldn't, emerge. Physical differences alone prove that this isn't the case--we know that differences can emerge. The only thing that you can try to argue is that mental differences did not, but not out of principle, as your statement seems to suggest. Yes, we are clearly qualitatively the same, but that does not mean that we are quantitatively the same--again, this argument is not an argument against the emergence of cognitive differences.

The cause of the Flynn effect is obviously environmental, but this has nothing to do with the argument that cognitive differences could/have have emerged due to evolutionary/biological factors. If you are trying to argue that the Flynn effect is selectively working against blacks in all countries and all income levels, helps other groups, and maintains the same pattern between races, you have a very hard case to prove.

You are saying that if we can't fully account for the genetic contribution to intelligence, then we cannot make any claims about racial differences in intelligence--this is false. Our failure to fully understand how intelligence is genetically determined is not evidence that there is no association between race and intelligence, adjusting for environment. The Piffer study is a step in the right direction, and do not be at all surprised when the data begins to mount against your argument. We will get better at understanding the connection between genes and intelligence, and once we do it will be much easier to prove our case. Right now, we must rely on statistical evidence, which has been the only thing available to psychologists until very recently. You cannot dismiss all of the studies on IQ as insufficient, claim that a genetic basis for racial IQ differences does not exist, and then claim that you have been proven correct.

Malnutrition and environmental toxicity have been adjusted for in at least one of the studies I mentioned about East Asian intelligence. The racial differences that persist despite adjusting for income also basically destroy this argument. Why would poor whites not be subject to this problem while blacks would, adjusting for income? Why are the amounts (of malnutrition and toxins) fixed such that the races just happen to be arranged in the same, persistent, hierarchical fashion? Using Africans as an example is irrelevant in explaining the differences here in America and in other developed countries.

You are left with stereotype threat and/or some other unknown variables. We have proposed a genetic explanation that, even in the absence of any evidence, would be a reasonable hypothesis. You have proposed one or more environmental factors that follow black people around all over the planet no matter what country or income level is present. Which scenario seems more plausible to you?

We do not know that environmental factors explain all of the data. You assume that because you don't want to admit the possibility that there might/is a genetic foundation. We have not even come close to ruling out a genetic component, and genetics is still in its infancy. As of right now, we have a tremendous number of phenotypic data points and commensurate statistically significant behavioral differences.

You are saying that untestable hypotheses are perfectly reasonable explanations for the gap, even when confronted with evidence to suggest that there is a genetic underpinning that, if true, could definitely explain the differences? This is an unbelievable statement. Basically, because we aren't certain that it is genetic, it must be environmental? This is not a tenable position.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rickysdisciple again.

 

Thanks for trying man!

 

Like Third Term my IQ is 130. I grew up in dire poverty having been born on the floor of a tin shack, growing up in the worse ghetto in NYC history, and still living in poverty despite two college degrees (one being a doctorate). "Soviet induced poverty" as you call it cannot possibly be responsible for the low IQ scores. Politics never does. Politics and racial preference has much to do with one's successes in life but never with one's IQ levels.

 

Poverty leads to more malnourishment, and less resources for education, 2 factors which definitely negatively impact IQ.

 

Native Americans, Siberians, South Asians, and Europeans all share a good deal of their DNA back to Siberian Ma'lta boy, while East Asians do not.

 

Ex Soviet bloc countries do score higher IQ scores than the World average though, except for some of the Balkan nations.

I'm not talking about a ridiculous increase in IQ, but maybe 3 - 8 point increases for former Soviet bloc nations under higher standards of living.

 

I also grew up malnourished but that didn't reduce my IQ.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmmmm ~ hadn't heard of that before.

 

Race in and of itself has no determination upon intelligence.

There is a huge difference between KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENCE.

AA

 

The only things that have made me dumber were a tight pair of cut offs on a hot girl and listening to anything a TV Evangelist is saying automatically lowers one's IQ by 50 points.

As well watching Jerry Springer or any like shows does the same by 50 points.

AA

 

In an adoption study malnourished Koreans scored a 102 IQ, moderately nourished Koreans scored a 106 IQ, and well nourished Koreans scored a 112 IQ.

Explanation?

Of course malnourished Koreans scored a higher IQ than African Americans, who are often better nourished.

So, there's definitely not enough going in the environment going on to explain that disparity.

But, environment does change things none the less.

 

I would hope EJ - since he has returned - will not ignore this wonderful take down of his arguments.

 

Thank you.

I must say, you and Empress have done an admirable job arguing this point, and I've learned a lot from your posts.

By mutual agreement, we have decided to wait until he can finish reading a few books that will help him make his case. The problem for EJ is that he is now committed to denying any cognitive differences, intellectual or otherwise, between racial groups.The key to these debates is to stick with the main idea and avoid getting bogged down in empirical minutia.

I haven't lost a debate on PF yet and don't intend to start now!

 

He has no plan on reading *a* book (he's literally taken weeks to supposedly read one).

He's gone back to posting full time here and is posting over at another forum he bugged me about joining:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/race-and-iq-differences.156169/

Currently I'm dealing with members who toss around 'environmental variables' but flee when challenged to present facts.

 

Oh I will read the book. The question is will Empress step up and debate me after I have made my thread? She never responded to this thread where I showed that a book she cited did not support her conclusions so I predict that if she ever returns to this board she will avoid my thread.

 

What evidence do you have that Western countries do not have the scientific integrity to tackle the Race & IQ controversy. Is it because they currently do not support your position that you do not have confidence in them? The Scientific Community in America is arguably the most rigorous in the world. We have addressed many controversies from evolution to climate change. I think that modern scientists have the ability to address this issue and as advances in the field of genetics increase we will have more definitive conclusions. But right now Scientific Racism has been eradicated from academia and I expect it to be further marginalized in the future.

The Graves article isn't old and I didn't say it was a rebuttal to the Piffer study only that it came to different conclusions.

I'm not arguing that mental differences could not exist but that the fact that humans became behaviorally modern in Africa means that we developed to a state where all human populations share the same mental traits and capacities. That was discussed in this thread.

I did not make that argument. Also it is not true that when controlling for all environmental factors there are still racial IQ gaps. The gap has gradually been reducing over recent years and controlling for Socioeconomic Status along with family and neighborhood quality eliminates the gap.

What I am arguing is that there is no highly consistent racial matrix which only appears to be the case when you selectively cite data and omit data that doesn't support racial arguments. Indeed we will get a better understanding of the relationship between genetics and intelligence and I fully expect the conclusions to be the same as what geneticists and biologists have been saying for years.

[video=youtube;GA0XLxG2o2E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA0XLxG2o2E[/video]

[video=youtube;lUjo31DChcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUjo31DChcE[/video]

We can rule out a genetic component based on there being no evolutionary genetic rationale for making the claim.

Now as to which is more plausible, multiple environmental variables affecting Black IQ globally or a genetic hypothesis the environmental explanation is more scientifically sound since it is based on population genetic theory. In order to infer genetic causality for phenotypic differences exhibited by different genotypes you have the rear those genotypes in the same environment. This is a basic principle of experimental quantitative genetics.

The genetic hypothesis relies on a series of assumptions about human genetic variation that have been shown empirically to be invalid.

We are certain that it is not caused by genetic differences. Scientific Racism is a fringe belief that has virtually no support in academia.

 

deez nutz.
I been in the gifted program with girls from Alapattah 'splain to me something about that.
PS:Several girls
Not 1..about four..'Splain that to me,pls

 

We generally have the best scientific community in the world, but studying racial differences in academia, particularly when you are suggesting a genetic basis, will destroy your career. Our country has a unique racial history, and it is negatively influencing our ability to be objective. I'm counting on Asian countries to ultimately resolve this, and they are already well on their way. I was recently researching cloning, and I came upon some interesting news coming out of China: http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program

They are mostly interested in people of Asian and Caucasian descent, interestingly enough. I eagerly await the next ten years of research on genetics and intelligence. Luckily, we won't have to rely on our biased institutions anymore.

How you conclude that is beyond me. You paid no attention to what I wrote and merely repeated yourself.

The SAT and other graduate tests were shown to you. A black person had to be wealthy to break even with poor whites. This is by far the largest sample size, and you can't get rid of the gap. You also haven't accounted for the Asian IQ differences I showed you (the adoption studies), nor have you accounted for the split that occurs among Asians. Numerous other achievement tests, like the NAEP, have also shown a persistent gap.

The chart you keep posting shows a gain of 5 points over a period of 30 years--great. At this rate, blacks will--won't--catch up in the year 2062--are you kidding me? I also hope you realize that the Flynn effect has begun to grind to a halt in many developed countries, so I wouldn't expect black IQ to continue climbing. It has been shown that the Flynn effect (concerned with comparing inter-generational differences), stops being operative for populations in the upper half of the distribution. In that case, blacks will NEVER catch up to Jews and Asians. I'd also like to point out that your example, the re-norming of the Wechsler, is a tiny sample in comparison to the other test data we have shown. Furthermore, Flynn himself has refrained from trying to use the Flynn effect as an explanation for the entire difference:

http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/flynn2010a.pdf

Here's an excerpt:

"American blacks are not in a time warp so that the
environmental causes of their IQ gap with whites are identical
to the environmental causes of the IQ gap between the
generations. The race and IQ debate should focus on testing
the relevant environmental hypotheses. The Flynn Effect is no
shortcut; correlations offered by Rushton and Jensen are no
shortcut. There are no shortcuts at all."

At best, he is asking that we try to find more environmental variables to explain it. We are still waiting! Here is some data on the Flynn effect that I drew from in my response to you.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289604000807
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rising-scores-on-intelligence-tests/1

Black people are identifying as black prior to test administrations, are they not? They are consistently under-performing relative to whites, based on their self-identification. I don't need to cherry-pick anything, because they are doing it for me.

We have no credible evolutionary rationale for a number of human behaviors, e.g., music and humor. Does that mean there is no genetic component?
You are walking in the dark in here. Thousands of different things could have happened. We have strong evidence to suggest that some did, like those SAT scores I keep asking you about. I also like that you ignored the rest of my arguments in that section.

We have. It happens every time people from similar socioeconomic backgrounds take the same test. It also happens when that same scenario occurs in other nations and the same differential is found. Did you know that black people commit more crimes than anyone else in every country on earth, at least among those that I have studied? Here's where you tell me stereotype threat or some other unknown variable is at work.

Good job. You linked me to an email between you and Graves in which nothing was demonstrated. This is a pure appeal to authority with no logical meat.

We are not certain at all. You are certain because to acknowledge otherwise threatens your entire worldview and self-esteem--I don't think any amount of evidence would change your mind. Acknowledging racial differences is not racist, and I'm not surprised most academics aren't touching this issue--they have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Oh, and just to put another nail in this coffin, a major study has now found that race is a better predictor of SAT scores than both parental education AND income.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/27/study-finds-race-growing-explanatory-factor-sat-scores-california

 

Bottom line, Intelligence and ability are too complicated to quantify in such terms, it is not a determined scientific study, and only the truly ignorant, will fall prey to these fallacies and ridiculous conclusions.

 

I am truly sad to have wasted so much time considering the massive waste of space and writing of useless twaddle.

 

Like you, I am skeptical that men (of any race) have created a test that adequately measures innate intelligence.

 

It depends on what work it is. I have textbooks that cite Rushton. At least one I have come across cites the Bell Curve book. What is problematic from Nisbett is what Lee pointed out, which unfortunately at least a few book authors accepted as valid on face value and repeated the misinformation, much like the passage of nearly a century before anyone attempted to duplicate Boas' study of cranial plasticity and the few decades that went by until someone finally came along and proved that Gould's cranial capacity work was garbage.

 

Again, your sole reliance on Google books means you don't own a single actual textbook in the field in spite of your claim of having have taken several semesters in psychology.

I'd say promising to read Nisbett's book which Lee demolished for 2 years running and not having yet done so is a blunder of epic proportion, especially when you continue to cite Nisbett.

The work you have cited from Graves to "debunk" Rushton has often contained the very out-of-expertise confused, befuddled claims that you have used to illustrate Rushton is full of garbage. You have quoted Graves and others outside of their field of expertise to attack Rushton. Since Graves is not a psychologist, his ability to actually attack Rushton's arguments is very limited.

Indeed, you remain completely unconcerned about arguing outside of one's field of expertise unless the person's name is Rushton. Here you are on this thread, yet again, using a Suzuki rant against Rushton as "evidence" of Rushton being debunked. In spite of that Suzuki admits that he cannot debunk Rushton because he's a zoologist. You are VERY sloppy with your source materials.

You have repeatedly attacked Rushton for this while using the out-of-expertise arguments from Graves, Suzuki, AND Lewontin very frequently.

That is in part why I say that you discuss this topic dishonestly and in bad faith.

He "wasn't aware" yet responded to you with an angry cheap shot at Lee? Amusing. This idea of yours doesn't explain why since you asked him about the review, he STILL hasn't responded.

Just admit it : Nisbett is in hiding.

Except this thread will never actually be made.

I did and I'm not reviewing it again.

Cool, but you've been claiming you were going to do this for 2 years running and haven't done it. As I said before, since Nisbett can't defend his own work from its critics, there's no way on earth that you can do it for him. At best all you'll do is come up with a sloppy attempt at motivated reasoning.

What you did was insinuate that the entirety of the Google search on the subject were a bunch of fanged white nationalists wanting to kill blacks. In spite of that it's laughable on it's face, you continue to claim that this attitude is prevalent and you cannot support it further than the previous sweeping assumption you made about Google searches. You seem to either WANT to cast yourself as a special victim or you want people to try to sterilize/kill you.

What you're trying to do is equate plant growth with human intelligence. That's quite a stretch. I've yet to see any real evidence that nutrient deprivation in humans greatly impacts their intelligence that is not both prolonged as it is severe. I've already mentioned this previously.

And pursuing this, you completely ignore that it's been long ago proven that adult IQ is heavily genetic. So yet again you rely on the debunked environmental theory of intelligence.

That URL goes to a post of yours that doesn't really address that at all. Outside of Nisbett's horribly flawed work, there is actually no body of scientific evidence which indicates this at all, especially in light of that adult IQ is highly genetic.

The black kids in MISTRA were reared in more well-off homes by white families. In spite of this, their IQs were much more like their biological black parents than their adopted white ones. Just one example of a number of studies which consistently show a high genetic input into adult IQ.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

That explains why the lowest black IQs on the planet are the parts of Africa with much more minimal contact with whites. "Racist discrimination" like what? Colored toilets? LOL!!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes yes... Where would you be without the "white people did it" security blanket to cover black failure with? You'd probably hang yourself.

Your "proof" of this relies very heavily on Nisbett's debunked bull(*)(*)(*)(*) coupled with a couple ideological zealot big mouths in biology who can't control their urges to overstep the bounds of their training.

NOBODY says that IQ is "partially genetic." Adult IQ, ESPECIALLY, is very heavily heritable. Intelligence runs in families.