Greyhounds are racing dogs. Sausage dogs (Dachshund) are labeled bad runners. Of course, this prejudice is socially constructed and has no foundation in rality. Race is only skin deep. From birth on, parents and dog owners are indoctrinated that they can not run well.. Remedial running classes and sausage quotas in races are needed to right past discriminatory wrongs.
In reality, Sausage dogs are born with the same running capacity as greyhounds. Saying otherwise is racist.
- 71 fastest runners on earth: 1 white Christophe Lemaitre & 70 blacks. Are races equal? | Human-Stupidity
- Race and IQ | Human-Stupidity
Sausage dogs discriminated in dog racing
The following video shows a a Sausage dog (Dachshund) race
Once sausage dogs overcome social prejudice, they will be able to compete in the Greyhound Race. As there are many more sausage dogs then greyhounds, a 50% quote for sausage dogs in dog races is only fair to remedy centuries of discriminatory practices.
Pigmy quotas needed in Olympic races
Similarly, pigmies grow up being indoctrinated they can not win Olympic marathons or 100 m dashes. Of course, with affirmative action and special remedial running classes, this can be remedied.
Race is only skin deep and all people are born equal. Kenyan and Jamaican runners are socially expected to excel in running
AB: Also, same phenotype can arise independently in different populations. Example- genes that allow the digestion of milk in adults. This gene is present in most Northern Europeans as well as in certain east African groups. And they developed this independently. Now what does that mean?
FRANK: You tell me what it means:
Black Kids Twice as Likely to Have Food Sensitivities to Peanuts, Eggs, Milk
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2011/09/black_kids_twic.php
It can mean a whole lot of things including environmental differences and epigenetic differences.
But for the most part, it means nothing more than two arbitrarily chosen groups showing differences in “average” statistics.
EGALITARIAN JAY: What I find amusing about the citation of crime statistics is that there is always a convenient excuse for White or Asian crime while Blacks criminals commit crime because they are Black. When you debate a racialist on crime statistics there bias becomes most apparent considering the double standard when it comes to looking at the race of criminals.
FRANK: While AB seems to ignore arguments he does not like you outright seem to manipulate arguments to support your view point.
Both the administrator and myself observed that you did not cite your source “Nationmaster.” What is most ridiculous is that you argued that you had no reason to do so in spite of the fact the evidence is clear that you did not cite Nationmaster once or even include a link to the source.
The only reason I can see for this action is that an examination of the primary sources used by Nationmaster would show serious flaws in the distribution of the information. You probably knew we could take the sources apart hence you hid them.
You approached this part of the debate in a spirit of deceit and now you lecture us on our intellectual dishonesty (hypocrisy.)
You can make all the assumptions you want Frank but the fact is that I have no reason to hid sources when any information I type can easily be looked up.
I did not hid anything and I did not make any attempt to deceive you.
I’m making an observation here. Racialists will find any excuse to ignore or discredit the fact that there are majority White countries with high crime rates and majority Black countries with low crime rates because it discredits their racial theories.
Nevermind the interpretations of data by you and the Admin, in the thread you created on The Phora prior to your banning I brought up the mass rape and mutilation of Chinese citizens by Japanese soldiers (Rape of Nanking) as evidence that Asians can behave collectively in a savage and brutal manner.
Phora posters did not know what to do with this information. One made the typical response that soldiers are not comparable to civilians but did not explain why. What is it about an armed man given a license to kill by his country that makes his immoral behavior that is consistent with the worst of criminals excusable but civilian criminals convicted of the same crime are acting on racially ordained behavior?
One of the posters actually tried to deny the historical events even happened at all.
Denial and excuses. That is the pattern of response I get on this subject which tells me this is not a scientific pursuit of knowledge or honest citation of statistics the motivation is to advance an emotionally appealing ideological agenda.
And that’s not a personal attack that is a general observation of the way racialists approach debate.
AB: This comment is an outdated speculation. Dog genome has been sequenced to a large extent. And in the nature article link I posted , the genetic difference between dog breeds has been found to be far greater than between human races (35% vs 10-15%).
Also important, all these differences in dog genome is mostly a result of purposeful hybidization as opposed to mostly random mating habits in humans. This can further amplify phenotypic differences even with the same amount of genetic differences.
FRANK: The argument illustrates a legitimate point that greater genetic variation within a group in comparison to between group differences does not negate the ability to make a zoological classification. This is the primary point of the debate.
The logic that differences are somehow negated by controlled breeding and not-so-controlled breeding that yield similar divisions in the end is quite silly to say the least. Clearly, he mating habits of humans have not been so random as to eliminate the ability to create offspring that can be classified as a zoological racial group.
We have irrefutable evidence that geneticists have been able to successfully map people into their correct racial groups. We have irrefutable evidence that forensic anthropologists can determine “race” with 100% accuracy based using measurements of pelvic and skull bones. We have irrefutable evidence that forensic investigators can determine race
“Sauer explained that in forensic anthropology race is assigned with high probability on the basis of an algorithm that combines a series of measurements.
According to him, it is taken for granted among forensic anthropologists that race is determinable from the skull and postcranium, and ‘‘if such a determination is not possible, the problem is usually attributed to the incomplete nature of the remains or mixed ancestry’’ (ibid. p. 109)
Indeed, a quick look into the literature confirms this. For instance, a study that covered 17 populations over the world and that relied on 34 different measurements managed to assign 98% of the specimens to their correct major racial group (Brues 1990, 6). Another more recent study had a success rate of 80% in distinguishing between American Whites and Blacks, although it used just two variables.
With seven variables, however, it reached the reliability of 95%, and with 19 variables the probability of correct classification rose to 97% (Ousley et al. 2009). Also, estimating generally the reliability of attributing a given data point to one of the five racial categories, another team of experts calculated that under some realistic conditions it is sufficient to use as few as 13 characteristics to have the posterior probability of the correct classification attain the value of 99% (Konigsberg et al. 2009)
The empirical reality appears to refute decisively the claim so confidently advocated by many philosophers that ‘‘as the number of traits increases, racial classification becomes increasingly difficult’’ (Andreasen 2004, 428), or that ‘‘multiplying phenotypic racial traits has the result … that … they correlate with one another in no particular order, throwing the alleged features for biological racial reality into an unorganized mess’’ (Glasgow 2009, 88). This is exactly backwards:multiplying relevant phenotypic racial traits brings more order and structure, and indeed lays ground for an objective biological classification”
SOURCE: Race: a social destruction of a biological concept – Neven Sesardic Received: 11 August 2009 / Accepted: 22 December 2009 / Published online: 12 January 2010 – Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
As mentioned earlier, the genetic evidence itself leads to racial classification. What is fascinating is that the evidence essentially destroys the arguments of race-deniers yet they continue to spout Lewontin-ish garbage as it if has been totally vindicated by the evidence.
A group of researchers led by geneticist Neil Risch analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers on a sample of 3,636 subjects from the United States and Taiwan. The subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of the four racial groups (white, African American, East Asian and Hispanic).
The genetic cluster analysis of the data produced four major clusters, whose correspondence with the four self reported races was near-perfect: the genetic cluster membership and self-identified race coincided in as many as 99.9% of the cases. Commenting on this result in an interview, Risch said that if the concept of race is regarded as genetically suspect because of this extremely low discordance rate of 0.1%, then any classificatory scheme should be rejected as well because ‘‘any category you come up with is going to be imperfect’’ (Gitschier 2005, 4). He added that if nothing short of a perfect correspondence could legitimate the genetic basis of a common sense category, then it would follow that even the distinction between ‘‘male’’ and ‘‘female’’ has nothing to do with genetics either, since in his study a discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome was actually higher that the discordance rate between self-reported race and the genetic cluster membership.
A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: ‘‘How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: ‘‘Never’’ (Witherspoon et al. 2007, 357).
To illustrate how, due to recent developments in science, a chasm opened between the consensus in philosophy of biology and views of some cutting edge geneticists, let me juxtapose contrasting statements of two authorities in these two fields. David Hull, philosopher: ‘‘The subdivisions of Homo sapiens that experts recognize do not come close to coinciding with the ‘races’ of ordinary people’’ (Hull 1998, 366). Neil Risch and his team of geneticists: ‘‘The correspondence between genetic cluster and self-identified race/ethnicity is remarkably high… Accordingly, in this case, major self-identified race/ethnicity and genetic cluster are effectively synonymous’’ (Tang et al. 2005, 271—italics added). In another paper Risch stated that ‘‘effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry’’ (Risch et al. 2002)
SOURCE: Race: a social destruction of a biological concept – Neven Sesardic Received: 11 August 2009 / Accepted: 22 December 2009 / Published online: 12 January 2010 – Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Also, Frank, you are right about some genes controlling other genes. In fact, there are mutator genes that causes mutation or at least increases the rate of mutation in other genes under environmental pressure.
However, this argument can be just as easily turned in favour of the “environmental” side of the argument. The expression of genes themselves are controlled by epigenetics and this epigenetics is actually to a large extent influenced by the environment. Moreoever, this epigenetics can also be inherited from previous generation.
So if you add all that up, environmental change can itself lead to a massive amount of change in individuals by controlling genetic expression and even genetic mutation (since there are mutator genes). And this change can last for generations because epigentics can be inherited for several generations.
Also, same phenotype can arise independently in different populations. Example- genes that allow the digestion of milk in adults. This gene is present in most Northern Europeans as well as in certain east African groups. And they developed this independently.
Now what does that mean?No one has been able to identify a gene for intelligence. The only gene that been found so far is present not only in all humans, but also in all rats/mice. So even if there was a gene for intelligence, we can’t say that it only exists in one race.
Frank, I know that small genetic differences can lead to large differences in phenotypes.(Of course, “large” is subjective. I may think humans and mice are very similar while another person might feel insulted by that thought). But I never made that 99% argument.
I argued that dog breeds are not as similar to each other as human races are.
“It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.”
This comment is an outdated speculation. Dog genome has been sequenced to a large extent. And in the nature article link I posted , the genetic difference between dog breeds has been found to be far greater than between human races (35% vs 10-15%).
Also important, all these differences in dog genome is mostly a result of purposeful hybidization as opposed to mostly random mating habits in humans. This can further amplify phenotypic differences even with the same amount of genetic differences.
Do you know that ancestors of all human beings outside of Africa can be traced to a single man about 60 thousand years ago? And that the ancestors of all human beings in general can be traced to a single woman 150 thousand years ago? There are documentaries in youtube about the OUT OF AFRICA theory like “Journey of Man”, “Human family tree”, “In search of scientific Adam.”, “The real eve” etc. 150000 years ago the total human population was less than 2000. The group that left Africa 60000 years ago was likely less than 200 in number.
Now Imagine that all the billions of humans came from these few people in such a short time.
I always thought that this website was about exposing evil feminist politics, stupid censorship and the hatred of men and not about bashing ALL women in general. If you are going to argue that all women are genetically evil, then that’s another belief.
What I find amusing about the citation of crime statistics is that there is always a convenient excuse for White or Asian crime while Blacks criminals commit crime because they are Black. When you debate a racialist on crime statistics there bias becomes most apparent considering the double standard when it comes to looking at the race of criminals.
ADMIN:Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe and one of the highest in the world. According to a 2009 study, there were 46 incidents of rape per 100,000 residents. This figure is double as many as in the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern Europe.[38]
According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definiton of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. A comparison based on victim surveys places Sweden at an average level among European nations
FRANK: We also have to take into account that the people committing the lions share of the crimes are not actual Swedes but third-world migrants:
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/12/immigrant-rape-wave-in-sweden.html
Russia is another nation that has a supposedly high crime rate. However, what people will neglect to mention is that 40% of Russian crime is attributed to immigrants largely from “developing” nations…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2760653.stm
If we look at the United States, a supposedly White nation we would see that the murder rates would be reduced by half if the black arrestees were not part of the equation. If you look at Table 43 of the FBI Uniform Crime Reports you will see that over 50% of arrestees for murder are blacks.
AB: Rubbish! If the full individual genetic and medical profile is available, there is no need for extra racial or gender information in medicine.
FRANK: So you are telling me there is no need for racial classification in spite of the fact that forensic investigations utilize racial classification as a means to identify a suspect?
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1055126&postcount=17
What would happen to forensic legal investigations if we utilized your logic…
AB: If the genetic profile is available, then gender could be figured out automatically. Unlike gender though, which depends on the Y chromosome, there are no specific genes that discretely determines “race”; but once again, the individual genetic profile and medical reports should be more than enough.
FRANK: Actually we can use genetic mapping testing to determine the race of individuals with great success.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1055195&postcount=19
In addition, it would be silly to assume that doctors can genetically map every human patient they hold as a client without passing on massive costs to the taxpayers and patients themselves.
“But recently some researchers have moved to examining genetic differences between participants rather than relying on race and ethnicity. Their reasoning is that genetic differences may be a more precise tool for tracking groups of patients. Risch points out that this genetic analysis is costly. If people fall into the same groups using self-identified race as using genetics, then that could bring down the expanding cost of medical research.”
http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm
AB: Within Africa there is more genetic variation than the rest of the world combined. So, if you are a doctor and trying to treat a patient with the sole information that he is “black” then you are not much better than a witch doctor. But if you have the full genetic and medical profile, then you hardly bother asking anything else.
FRANK: Regurgitating fallacious quotes from Graves is not a rational argument when the evidence illustrates that ethnicity based medicine already has validity:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1055195&postcount=19
The fact that we can use genetics to map racial groups is evidence that each group has a unique make-up regardless of the genetic bean counting.
Results
“Phylogenetic analysis based on two different approaches – genetic distance and maximum likelihood along with statistical bootstrapping procedure involving 1000 replicates was carried out. The ensuing tree topologies and PC plots were further compared with those obtained in earlier phylogenetic investigations. The compiled database of 21 populations got segregated and finely resolved into three basal clusters with very high bootstrap values corresponding to three geo-ethnic groups of African, Orientals, and Caucasians.”
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/6/47/abstract
EGALITARIAN JAY: My source is Nationmaster as well as Comparative Criminology (on the African and Caribbean statistics). There would be no point to hide sources since this can easily be looked up. We’re typing on a blog so I see no point to go into too much detail but if you guys want sources they can be given.
FRANK: You may want to look at the sources cited by Nationmaster:
Overall, figure 1 shows comparatively low homicide levels in countries in Europe, Asia and North America, with reasonable agreement between criminal justice and public health data.
In contrast, both criminal justice and public health data (albeit with less agreement) indicate significantly higher rates in South America, Central America, the Caribbean, and Southern Africa.
Large data discrepancies remain for Middle, Western, and Eastern Africa. Substantive work on administrative data recording systems in both the criminal justice and public health fields is required in these sub Ǧ regions before
meaningful comparisons can be made with other
sub Ǧ regions of the world.
Figure 1 also reveals the continued existence of signficant data limitations. In particular, very few countries in Middle, West and Eastern Africa are able to provide criminal justice data on intentional homicide. Where data is available, significant differences exist as compared with
public health figures. The limitations in criminal justice data availability in Africa relative to other regions are shown in
figure 2
http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Hakapaino_final_07042010.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1266335656647&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf
AB: Actually, the dog breed analogy is a bit of fallacy in itself. First of all, dogs are a bit of an exception. Most animals don’t have breeds which are nearly as diverse as dog breeds. Just because they are the same species doesn’t mean they are genetically very close.
FRANK: They are not an exception. a segment of western chimps possess the most genetic variation ever measured. They were clearly closer to chimps as they were chimps but actually could be clustered with humans on certain scales due to the vast variation.
As Michael Rienzi explains:
“Although it is true that human populations share roughly 99.9 percent of their genes, it is also true that humans share over 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, and a very high amount with animals like mice and dogs. Many of these genes produce basic body structures all mammals have in common; differences between organisms are caused by very small genetic differences.
Men and women are 99.998 percent identical but no one suggests that men and women are identical.
Current evidence suggests that all the sex differences between men and women are the result of just one genetic difference—one gene (the Testes Determining Factor) out of an estimated 50,000-100,000! This would mean men and women are 99.998 to 99.999 percent genetically identical, yet no one suggests that sex is a mere “social construct.” In like manner, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, which no one denies, can be described as 12 to 20 times the genetic differences between racial groups.
Tiny genetic differences can have huge phenotypic consequences because genes are ordered in a hierarchical fashion. Some genes are “master genes,” and control the expression of a number of other genes, each of which may further control several other genes. Also, the expression of each gene is controlled by regions called “promoters” and “enhancers,” usually located in front of the functional part of the gene. A small change in the promoter region of gene “X” can alter its expression. X may control genes A, B, C, D, E, F. Gene A in turn may control its own set of genes. Even if all of the genes other than “X” are identical between two groups, the one difference in “X” would be sufficient to produce large group differences.
It is not the quantity of genetic difference that is important, but the nature of the differences: which genes are different, in what ways they differ, and the consequences of these differences. Breeds of dogs are analogous to human races. It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.
It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes “makes no difference.”
{snip}
The flaw in this argument is the same as in the “99.9 percent argument,” in that it stresses quantity—genetic “bean counting”—rather than the importance of genetic differences and their consequences. Indeed, there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups, but if this variation does not influence the expression of important genes, it is not of much consequence. There is considerable genetic variation between siblings and between parents and children, but this does not alter the fact that they are more closely related to each other than to strangers.
Once again Prof. Whitney has demonstrated the absurdity of the “variation” argument. He points out that one could take the total genetic diversity contained within the population of Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys and give it an index of 100 percent. Surprising as it may seem, more than half of that diversity will be found both in the population of Belfast and in the monkey troop. There is great genetic diversity even between two individuals who are very similar to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more like macaques than they are like their neighbors, though this is precisely the way the there-are-no-races advocates use the argument when they apply it to humans.
Prof. Whitney explains that just as in the case of the genetic differences between men and women, “the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned.” Small genetic differences can translate into important physical and behavioral differences.
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/10/race_is_a_myth.php
Actually, the dog breed analogy is a bit of fallacy in itself.
First of all, dogs are a bit of an exception. Most animals don’t have breeds which are nearly as diverse as dog breeds. Just because they are the same species doesn’t mean they are genetically very close.
Dog breeds are genetically much more variable than human races.
Studies have found that only about 65% of the genetic difference are within breeds. Whereas for humans, 85 to 90% of genetic differences are due to individual differences within a geographic group.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08837.html
Also, one can more accurately identify the breed of a dog genetically than to identify a hypothetical race for humans.
http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0520SCI-DOG-BREEDS-ON.html
Now add to that that dogs have been bred on purpose to amplify certain traits whereas humans have bred randomly(for the most part).
The genetic difference between two average humans is 1 base pair in 1300.
If you add all that,perhaps a better and more accurate comparison will be doing a race within a particular breed like grey-hound.
At the very best, you can argue about racing between two different breeds of spaniels, but a race between a sausage-dog and a grey-hound is not even remotely what the situation is like with races.
In fact, chimps in the same jungle show more genetic variation than all of human beings combined. Why not race these chimps? That seems much more logical than racing two completely different dog-breeds.
Human beings are so close genetically because we came very close to extinction on two separate occasions and all our close cousins like neanderthals are extinct.
AB: Like I said before, there is no need for any kind of classification into groups as long as I have the individual genetic profile and as long as I have the individual performance-chart..
FRANK: So you believe there is no need for classification? You do know that medical and forensic science would be shot to hell if we took your advice? Should we also omit classifications such as age and gender as well in these fields?
Rubbish! If the full individual genetic and medical profile is available, there is no need for extra racial or gender information in medicine.
If the genetic profile is available, then gender could be figured out automatically.
Unlike gender though, which depends on the Y chromosome, there are no specific genes that discretely determines “race”; but once again, the individual genetic profile and medical reports should be more than enough.
Rather than age, which is only a number, the actual condition of the person is far more important.
Physical age =/= Biological age.
Within Africa there is more genetic variation than the rest of the world combined. So, if you are a doctor and trying to treat a patient with the sole information that he is “black” then you are not much better than a witch doctor. But if you have the full genetic and medical profile, then you hardly bother asking anything else.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Regarding crime rates, Admin, how do African and Caribbean countries with low crime rates yet majority Black populations fit with your theory?
FRANK:You have not cited a source Egalitarian Jay. You tell us how science works and then you appeal to anonymous authority.
My guess is that you have used nationmaster and decided to hide this source since nationmaster cautions against using a nation by nation comparison using their statistics.
Thank you, Frank. I was requesting the sources of the above statistics too.
If Norway has higher rape rates then South Africa, Kenya, or Rwanda, then I suspect it has to do with the definition of rape (I strongly doubt that any woman in Kenya will get anywhere with accusations of 5 second rapes, consented-but-was-tipsy-rape, broken condom rape etc)..
Also I read that ALL forcible rape-rapes in Norway in the last years had immigrant culprits. Anyone has the citation handy?
One might read at Lynn’s books, that even within countries crime, poverty have the same gradient as skin color. I believe Lynn has good statistics.
I am also still waiting for the analysis of the genius level students from Africa, @egalitarianjay.
My source is Nationmaster as well as Comparative Criminology (on the African and Caribbean statistics). There would be no point to hide sources since this can easily be looked up. We’re typing on a blog so I see no point to go into too much detail but if you guys want sources they can be given.
My point stands on the matter. In fact the subjectivity of crime and sexual behavior definitions is a point Graves brought up in his presentation at John Jay College. There is no universal standard for which to compile these statistics. When you go country by country, regardless of the source the pattern does not fit Rushton’s 3 race hierarchy.
As I pointed out before because criminals do not represent the average person crime statistics are not a reliable way to judge a populations general behavior in the first place.
There are many more problems with using this type of data to support the notion of life history variation between races and remember that while Rushton believes the strength of his argument is with the data he has gone the route of advancing an evolutionary genetic rationale to explain the data which was thoroughly discredited as Graves explains:
Rushton’s memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like “social organization” and “crime”. Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.
——————————–
Admin what I said about the students from Africa is that there is no reason to assume they are all high level geniuses rather than a group of people with above average intelligence who have a culture that teachers good study habits and hard work ethic. I have interacted with plenty of African immigrants in school and the workforce.
They don’t strike me as geniuses just hardworking, normal, decent people for the most part. There aren’t any sources that I know of who have related this to Race & IQ Admin because the racial hereditarians ignore this fact.
There are however several sources who call African immigrants in the USA a model minority, albeit an invisible one.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/black_immigrants_an_invisible.html
Admin,
The way science works is that you make an effort to test your hypotheses and develop new theories when new, valid data refutes old theories. If your theory is wrong it is wrong. You don’t make excuses for data that does not fit your theory.
Science:
1. Gather facts.
2. Come up with a hypothesis to make sense of them.
3. Test the hypothesis.
Pseudoscience:
1. Come up with the desired conclusion.
2. Gather facts that support the conclusion.
3. Find excuses for the facts that do not fit.
Maybe you want to see a brighter future for Blacks, Admin, but Rusthon does not. All he cares about is proving that there are racial differences which can be ranked in hierarchical fashion. That is why when his evolutionary theory was discredited he did not attempt to challenge the evidence which refuted it but instead keeps promoting it as is.
That’s why when it was shown that improvement in environment is improving test scores of Black Americans Rushton went into straight denial mode in order to protect his theory of a genetic component to IQ and Socioeconomic gaps.
Regarding crime rates, Admin, how do African and Caribbean countries with low crime rates yet majority Black populations fit with your theory?
Here are the countries with the highest murder rates per capita in the world:
1. Turkey
2. Belarus
3. Lithuania
4. Albania
5. Estonia
6. Ukraine
7. Turkmenistan
8. Latvia
9. Croatia
10. Romania
Notice how many Eastern European countries are on that list. Some of these countries are so White that it is preposterous to blame any minority groups within the countries for the crime rates. According to racialist theory most of these countries should be majority Black if Blacks are genetically more prone to violent crime.
Here are the countries with the most rapes per capita:
1. Lesotho
2. New Zealand
3. Belgium
4. Iceland
5. Norway
6. Israel
7. Finland
8. Chile
9. Mongolia
10. Ireland
Quite a diverse crowd. There’s even an Asian country on there. And again the list is not dominated by countries whose residents by majority are of African descent. According to racialist theory it should be since Blacks have less sexual restraint than other races.
Science would suggest that if the data contradicts the hypothesis then the hypothesis is false. Rushton fixates only on countries with like the USA and the United Kingdom where Blacks are a minority and disproportionately poor to draw conclusions from crime statistics.
I think crime statistics in general are an unreliable way to draw conclusions about the general behavior of populations because criminals do not represent the average person. You could make a better argument for a society being generally more benevolent than others based on cultural history. When you appeal to this standard the claim that Europeans and Asians are genetically more prone to good behavior than Africans becomes less credible when you consider historical atrocities committed by these groups.
That includes various genocides and hostile acts by people of European descent such as the chattel slavery of Africans, the Holocaust and mass murder of Native Americans under the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. Or the atrocities committed by people of Asian descent such as the torture and mass murder of people under Communist China led by Mao Zedong as well as the mass rapes and torture by Japanese soldiers during World War II on their Asian neighbors.
Here we have far more people of one ethnic group behaving badly as a collective, far more than the minority of civilian criminals who commit crimes annually. Scientists would look at this and conclude that Europeans and Asians are simply not as benevolent and some assume. Propagandists make excuses for these atrocities.
When you take all of this in context the world is simply not as simple as racial theorists would like to claim it is e.g. blaming genetics when it suits them. I don’t doubt that there is a genetic component to some mental illnesses but serious mental illness occurs in people who represent a small fraction of the population not a large number of people spread unevenly across different regions.
Environmental factors easily explain some of the trends that we do observe.
please cite your statistics.
A short look at murder statistics at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate showed pretty clearly that Asia and Northern Europe had low rates, Brazil, Jamaica, etc very high rates.
Most of Africa is grey, it probably means they are so backward that there are no statistics.
Russian Federation is probably an outlier, due to serious mafia problems.
The U.S. Department of Justice compiles statistics on crime by race, but only between and among people categorized as black or white. In 2005 there were 111,490 white and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault. In 2005, out of the 111,490 cases involving white victims, 44.5% had white offenders and 33.6% had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 100% black offenders, numbers of white offenders were estimated to be negligible.[24] There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006. However, the report does give a note that for the instances of white-on-black rape the statistic is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.[25] According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
Sweden has the highest incidence of reported rapes in Europe and one of the highest in the world. According to a 2009 study, there were 46 incidents of rape per 100,000 residents. This figure is double as many as in the UK which reports 23 cases, and four times that of the other Nordic countries, Germany and France. The figure is up to 20 times the figure for certain countries in southern and eastern Europe.[38]
According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, the high numbers are explained by a broader legal definiton of rape than in other countries, and an effort to register all suspected and repeated rapes. A comparison based on victim surveys places Sweden at an average level among European nations.[39]
==================
It is estimated that a woman born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped than learning how to read.[45] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[46]
South Africa has some of the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world.[47] In a related survey conducted among 1,500 schoolchildren in the Soweto township, a quarter of all the boys interviewed said that ‘jackrolling’, a term for gang rape, was fun.[46] More than 25% of a sample of 1,738 South African men from the KwaZulu-Natal and Eastern Cape Provinces admitted when anonymously questioned to raping someone; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person, according to a non-peer reviewed policy brief issued by the Medical Research Council (MRC).[48] Several news publications extrapolated these results to the rest of the South African population.[49][50][51] The humanitarian news organization IRIN claims that an estimated 500,000 rapes are committed annually in South Africa, but does not provide a source for this figure.[51]
=============
@EgalitarianJay: if the theory does not explain something, this still does not change the validity of the observed and measured data. Like the low American Indian IQ. And the low IQ, low economic success and high crime rate of blacks everywhere.
==========
Now the only alleged DATA that contradicts Rushton is the story about black immigrant students being extremely successful and intelligent at elite Universities.
Now if that data were true and not a highly selected elite group
a) it would be cited everywhere, day and night
b) it would give cues as to how to make black societies intelligent, successful and rich. And I don’t think Rushton loves black misery. He sure would be happy if the key to this secret could be found.
So maybe we could discuss the literature on that anomaly of extremely successful black immigrant students. Plus the replies by Rushton and others. I suppose that there is some fallacy, like selection of the most intelligent elite in Africa, or affirmative action, ……
Still, this is a little off topic to our running abilities of pygmies and sausage dogs …
EGALITARIAN JAY: Edwards called this a fallacy because with enough genetic polymorphisms sampled you could easily identify an individual from one geographic population from another with near 100% accuracy therefore these divisions based on continental ancestry had taxonomic significance. His argument however is a strawman because while it’s perfectly true that when sampling enough non-coding genes that are ancestry informative you can identify individuals from regionally distinct populations (e.g. an Englishmen from a German or a Korean from a Japanese) the issue is with how divergent people from certain populations are not whether or not you can identify one from another based on genetics.
FRANK: Edwards referred to Lewontins calculation as a fallacy based on the following:
“These conclusions are based on the old statistical fallacy
of analysing data on the assumption that it contains no
information beyond that revealed on a locus-by-locus analysis, and then drawing conclusions solely on the results of such an analysis. The ‘taxonomic significance’ of genetic data in fact often arises from correlations amongst the different loci, for it is these that may contain the information which enables a stable classification to be uncovered.
Cavalli-Sforza and Piazza (6) coined the word ‘treeness’ to
describe the extent to which a tree-like structure was hidden amongst the correlations in gene-frequency data.
Lewontin’s superficial analysis ignores this aspect of the structure of the data and leads inevitably to the conclusion that the data do not possess such structure. The argument is circular. A contrasting analysis to Lewontin’s, using very similar data, was presented by Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards at the 1963 International Congress of Genetics. (7)
Making no prior assumptions about the form of the tree, they derived a convincing evolutionary tree for the 15 populations that they studied. Lewontin, (2,5) though he participated in the Congress, did not refer to this analysis.
The statistical problem has been understood at least since
the discussions surrounding Pearson’s ‘coefficient of racial
likeness’(8) in the 1920s. It is mentioned in all editions of
Fisher’s Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1)
from 1925 (quoted above). A useful review is that by Gower
(9) in a 1972 conference volume The Assessment of Population Affinities in Man. As he pointed out, ‘‘. . . the human mind distinguishes between different groups because there are correlated characters within the postulated groups.’
The original discussions involved anthropometric data, but
the fallacy may equally be exposed using modern genetic
terminology. Consider two haploid populations each of size n. In population 1 the frequency of a gene, say ‘þ’ as opposed to‘’, at a single diallelic locus is p and in population 2 it is q, where p þ q ¼1. (The symmetry is deliberate.) Each population manifests simple binomial variability, and the overallvariability is augmented by the difference in the means.
The natural way to analyse this variability is the analysis of
variance, from which it will be found that the ratio of the
within-population sum of squares to the total sum of squares is simply 4pq. Taking p ¼ 0.3 and q ¼ 0.7, this ratio is 0.84; 84% of the variability is within-population, corresponding closely to Lewontin’s figure. The probability of misclassifying an individual based on his gene is p, in this case 0.3. The genes at a single locus are hardly informative about the population to which their bearer belong.
Now suppose there are k similar loci, all with gene frequency p in population 1 and q in population 2. The ratio
of the within-to-total variability is still 84% at each locus. The total number of ‘þ’ genes in an individual will be binomial with mean kp in population 1 and kq in population 2, with variance kpq in both cases. Continuing with the former gene frequencies and taking k ¼ 100 loci (say), the mean numbers are 30 and 70 respectively, with variances 21 and thus standard deviations of 4.58.
With a difference between the means of 40 and a common standard deviation of less than 4.6, there is virtually no overlap between the distributions, and the probability of misclassification is infinitesimal, simply on the basis of counting the number of ‘þ’ genes. Fig. 1 shows how
the probability falls off for up to 20 loci.
One way of looking at this result is to appreciate that the
total number of ‘þ’ genes is like the first principal component in a principal component analysis (Box 1). For this component the between-population sum of squares is very much greater than the within-population sum of squares. For the other components the reverse will hold, so that overall the between population sum of squares is only a small proportion (in this example 16%) of the total.
But this must not beguile one into thinking that the two populations are not separable, which they clearly are…”
http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
EGALITARIAN JAY: Lewton’s argument was that zoological taxonomic classification of populations into subspecies was based on the amount of genetic differentiation between populations. Because there is much more genetic differentiation within geographic populations than between them subdividing human populations based on geographic ancestry is not justifiable because the major genetic differentiation of our species is not between those types of groups.
FRANK: The only problem with this is that zoological classification is not based on mere genetic similarity vs variations but the collective expression of the genes in question.
As Logician Neven Sesardić explains:
“Since the publication of Richard Lewontin’s widely cited article (Lewontin 1972), it has been a matter of scientific consensus that a much smaller part of the total human
genetic variation is between the races than within the races. Lewontin estimated the inter-racial variation comprises only about 7% of the total genetic variation in the human species.
Some philosophers think that this numerical fact alone shows that the biological concept of subspecies (or race) is inapplicable to humans (e.g., Machery and Faucher 2005, 1208–1209; Richardson 2000, 847). Robin Andreasen
also uses the relatively small between-group genetic variation to argue that ‘‘if we focus on the synchronic question—is there any justification for dividing current
populations into races—the answer may very well be ‘no’’’ (Andreasen 1998, 215, cf. 2000, S663; Mallon 2006, 529). In a similar vein, Ned Block tries to undermine the importance of race by mentioning that only about 7% of all human genetic variation lies between the major races (Block 1995, 112, 115). All these philosophers seem to consider the anti-race import of that low percentage figure
so cogent and straightforward that they do not even deem it necessary to clarify how it is supposed to establish their conclusion. Yet their reasoning is fallacious: the mere fact that the between-group genetic variation is many times smaller than the within-group variation does not actually preclude racial categorization from making a lot of genetic sense.
To think otherwise is to commit a statistical mistake that has recently been labeled ‘‘Lewontin’s fallacy’’ (see Edwards 2003). An argument that is due to Lewontin and that has been uncritically accepted by almost all philosophers is that
racial classification is of virtually no genetic or biological significance just because the genetic differences between the races on a number of arbitrarily selected loci are
typically found to be swamped by the corresponding within-race differences. But as Edwards has shown, Lewontin completely ignored the aggregation effect of these
inter-group differences in allele frequencies on different loci, which could (and arguably does) support a racial taxonomy—without a need for a very big average
variation between the races on a locus-by-locus basis. Even with Lewontin’s condition satisfied (i.e., the within-group variation being much larger than the between-group variation), a clear group structure can still emerge on the basis of these aggregate properties of populations. It should be emphasized that Lewontin’s fallacy was exposed long before Edwards’ article in 2003. An especially clear
explanation is given in Mitton (1977) and (1978), the articles that somehow missed the attention of most scholars, including Edwards himself (personal communication)
{snip}
Returning to the topic of human genetic variation, we are now in a better position to diagnose the source of Lewontin’s fallacy. The figure of only 7–10% of total genetic variation belonging to the variation between the races actually refers to the inter-racial portion of variation that is averaged over the separate contributions of a number of individual genetic indicators that were sampled in different studies. In
other words, this information is completely restricted to an iterated single-dimensionpoint-of-view. Any structure that might exist at the level of the aggregation of the inter-group genetic differences is absolutely invisible from that essentially one dimensional perspective.
Lewontin’s univariate approach to the conceptualization of race is particularly clear when he asks: ‘‘How much difference in the frequencies of A, B, AB, and O
blood groups does one require before deciding that it is large enough to declare two local populations are in separate ‘races’?’’ (Lewontin 1987, 2000)
This is the wrong question completely. Races are not distinguished from one another by some specially big difference of allelic frequencies in one trait, but rather by a
combination of a number of small or moderate differences in many traits. That is, e pluribus, not ex uno.
Here is another way of explaining Lewontin’s fallacy, by using an analogy with two biased coins. Assume that coin 1 is slightly biased toward heads, with its p(H) = 0.6, whereas coin 2 is biased in the opposite direction, with its p(H) = 0.4. If one of the two coins is randomly chosen and then flipped, observing the outcome (heads or tails) will not help us much in guessing which of these two coins was
actually flipped. On average, our best guess (that it was the coin with the bias toward the observed outcome) will be correct only slightly above the chance level of
0.5. To be precise, our success rate with this strategy will be 60%.
But with the increasing number of tosses of the selected coin, our predictive ability will become better and better. Consider the situation in Table 1 that represents 11 flips of the unknown coin, which in every trial has the same probability of heads (either 0.6 or 0.4)
http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/race-1.pdf
EGALITARIAN JAY: Even Rushton admits he doesn’t have an explanation for this. He also doesn’t have an explanation for the lower IQs and current standard of living for Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia and the Philippines whose ancestors came from mainland Asia and should have experienced the same selection pressure that produces high intelligence. Scientists would call these contradictions which discredit the cold winter theory making claims based on this theory bogus.
FRANK: The first issue is that Rushton explained that there were variations, he previously quoted Professor Richard Lynn:
4. Race Differences in Winter Temperatures, Brain Size, and IQ
The evolution of larger brain size to accommodate greater intelligence in the races that occupied the colder environments is shown in Table 16.2. Column 2 gives the races ranked by the severity of the winter temperatures to which they were exposed. Column 3 gives present-day coldest winter monthly temperatures taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica World Atlas and are averages of the regions inhabited by the races. Column 3 gives the coldest winter monthly temperatures during the main Wurm glaciation, which lasted between approximately 28,000 and 10,000 years ago and during which winter temperatures fell by about 5 degrees centigrade in the northern hemisphere but not in the southern hemisphere (Roberts, 1989; Foley, 1987). Column 4 gives average brain sizes taken from Table 16.1. It is apparent that there is a general correspondence between coldest winter monthly temperatures and brain sizes. For the first six races listed, brain sizes decrease with less severely cold winter monthly temperatures. However, in the remaining four races this linear trend becomes irregular. The Africans inhabit a warmer zone than the Bushmen but have larger brain size. The Australian Aborigines continue the trend with a warmer zone and lower brain size. However, the Southeast Asians and the Pacific Islanders in tropical and sub-tropical zones have larger brain sizes than the South Asians and North Africans, the Bushmen, the Africans, and the Australian Aborigines.
Column 5 gives the IQs of the races. Here too it is apparent that there is a general correspondence between the IQs and the coldest winter monthly temperatures and brain sizes, but once again there are anomalies. First, the Arctic Peoples inhabit the coldest zone and have the largest brain size, but their IQ is only 91. Second, the Bushmen have the second smallest brain size (l,270cc) but the lowest IQ (54), while the Australian Aborigines have the smallest brain size (1225cc) but a slightly higher IQ (62) than the Bushmen. Apart from these anomalies there is a perfect correspondence between race differences in brain size and IQ.
To explain these anomalies we have to consider the genetical principles involved in the evolution of the race differences in intelligence. This question is taken up in Section 8.
http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/antrop/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.html#_16
In conclusion, Rushton offered a very detailed explanation as to the variations within Asiatic IQ’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11uVdvxc9ac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMHdZtfAYb8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbpAnEAfqx0
EGALITARIAN JAY: For instance how can African immigrants outperform Asian-Americans and White Americans academically if Africans are on average significantly cognitively deficient.
FRANK: And this is what I meant about the application of Lewontins-Fallacy to the issue of IQ.
1) The argument you are making is a dishonest one. There is no article that says they are “outperforming” the other groups but merely obtaining degrees at a greater rate.
2) These small number of people constitute less than 0.1% of the African population. They are the overlapping variation. The averages are not negated by such a small variation:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/2006%20IJSA.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Rushton-JensenIQdiffs03PAID.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Intell03Ravens.pdf
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/JenEffRavens02.pdf
Lewton’s argument was that zoological taxonomic classification of populations into subspecies was based on the amount of genetic differentiation between populations. Because there is much more genetic differentiation within geographic populations than between them subdividing human populations based on geographic ancestry is not justifiable because the major genetic differentiation of our species is not between those types of groups.
The issue for Lewontin was with the claim of major genetic divisions between populations. This type of genetic variation meant there there were no clear cut genetic boundaries of evolutionary significance and that people from one geographic group were no more genetically divergent from other groups than they were from each other.
Edwards called this a fallacy because with enough genetic polymorphisms sampled you could easily identify an individual from one geographic population from another with near 100% accuracy therefore these divisions based on continental ancestry had taxonomic significance. His argument however is a strawman because while it’s perfectly true that when sampling enough non-coding genes that are ancestry informative you can identify individuals from regionally distinct populations (e.g. an Englishmen from a German or a Korean from a Japanese) the issue is with how divergent people from certain populations are not whether or not you can identify one from another based on genetics.
Steven Rose addresses this in the following video (@7:48):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM6Ekv4L6h4
Graves also discusses this in more detail in this article:
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Graves/
As far as “intelligent blacks” and Native American groups are concerned Frank as I recall I asked a poster how Rushton’s evolutionary theories could explain a large number of intelligent Blacks.
For instance how can African immigrants outperform Asian-Americans and White Americans academically if
Africans are on average significantly cognitively deficient. Even if you talk about averages there should be enough African immigrants to make this possible and the claim that they are all super geniuses and a rare anomaly among Africans doesn’t hold because they would be getting the very best jobs in the country. They are only doing above average academically, plus there is good reason to believe the true intellectual elite stay in Africa since they can afford a higher standard of living at the top of Africa’s social class within their respective country rather than immigrate elsewhere.
That has nothing to do with Lewontin’s arguments.
My point about Native Americans is the simply fact that if the ancestors of modern Native Americans traveled across the Bering Strait from Northeast Asia their ancestors would have underwent the exact same selection pressure, evolving the allegedly, large intelligent brains of modern Northeast Asians. Yet Native Americans did not have cultures on par with ancient China or feudal Japan and they have lower average IQs than Whites today.
Even Rushton admits he doesn’t have an explanation for this. He also doesn’t have an explanation for the lower IQs and current standard of living for Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia and the Philippines whose ancestors came from mainland Asia and should have experienced the same selection pressure that produces high intelligence. Scientists would call these contradictions which discredit the cold winter theory making claims based on this theory bogus.
Ofcourse when you consider the fact that r/K selection theory itself was discredited and Rushton got the theory backwards there is absolutely no reason to take these theories seriously at all. It’s obviously pseudoscience.
I would argue Admin that instead of dismissing the arguments against racialism as a distraction from scientific facts that you think critically about the arguments being made by racialists because they have been demonstrated to be bogus.
I’ve argued this point over and over with Frank and others though so I’m going to leave it alone for now. I have more interesting videos on my Youtube channel including the rest of Race: The Power of an Illusion series.
AB: “Hey EgalitarianJay, are you the same guy with anti-racist videos on YouTube and Dailymotion? I just want to tell you that I agree with you and I really appreciate what you are doing.”
FRANK: I am curious as to exactly what you appreciate? What arguments has Egalitarian Jay presented that you agree with so adamantly?
I agree with almost everything that he says and I appreciate that he is exposing the stupidity that lies within racism.
The only thing that I consider even more stupid than racism is the attempt in media to censor racism. I don’t believe in censorship of any kind. People should discuss this publicly so that the common-sense notion of races can be broken.
Like I said before, there is no need for any kind of classification into groups as long as I have the individual genetic profile and as long as I have the individual performance-chart..
EGALITARIAN JAY: Richard Lewontin’s research on within and between group genetic variation of human populations has nothing to do with the meaningfulness of IQ distributions so this example is is rather strange. Admin I recommend you read Lewontin’s review of Rushton’s book to get your own perspective on what he actually thinks are the fallacies of Rushton’s theory.
FRANK: Robert Lindsay was offering an example of how Lewontins-fallacy is a ridiculous basis for a rational argument.
We know for example that Chimpanzee sub-species have more genetic variation that all of humanity.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-11/AAft-Csag-031199.php
In fact it was discovered that 55 western chimps had more genetic diversity that all of humanity combined:
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/ethnic.dir/race/chimps/chimps.htm
And yet we can still take chimpanzees and attached three zoological sub-specie classifications to their species:
http://primatology.net/2007/03/21/genetic-study-confirms-three-chimpanzee-subspecies/
Lewontins fallacy should not permit such a thing due to the massive genetic diversity that exists in Chimps, diversity that exceeds the entire genetic diversity of the human species.
Second, it is not uncommon for people to apply the Lewontin standard to the issue of IQ and race. It is not uncommon for “anti-racists” to point out anomalies in IQ test scores as evidence against average IQ collective rankings. You have done this yourself by asking me to explain “intelligent blacks.” You have done so by asking me to explain why there are variations in native indian groups.
Richard Lewontin’s research on within and between group genetic variation of human populations has nothing to do with the meaningfulness of IQ distributions so this example is is rather strange. Admin I recommend you read Lewontin’s review of Rushton’s book to get your own perspective on what he actually thinks are the fallacies of Rushton’s theory.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=O3JUAWOR
ADMIN: @Frank: I would love you to write a post here, focusing on human stupidity interest:
What are the strategies that EJ, but especially famous people like Nisbett, Graves, politically correct press, politicians do to distract from obvious scientific facts. Methods of distraction and disinformation. That is really the interest of Human-Stupidity. We can talk via email.
FRANK: Largely, the arguments of anti-racists are based on Lewontins-Fallacy:
http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
The overlying position of numerous anti-racists is that variation omits classification. Anti-racists think in absolutes. Robert Lindsay offers the following analysis of the Lewontin position that is championed by most anti-racists:
“According to… (Lewontin’s) fallacy, most genetic variation is within groups and not between groups. 85% is within any given group, and only 15% is between the average of any one group with any other.
Why this is a fallacy can be easily shown. For instance, within Whites, IQ’s in a group of 1000 Whites have IQ’s ranging from 148 to 68 or so. There are 80 points variation within the group.
Now let us look at the average of 1000 Whites versus the average of 1000 Blacks. The 1000 Whites have an average IQ of 103. The 1000 Blacks have an average IQ of 89.8. There are 13.2 points variation between the averages of each group.
According to Lewontin’s Fallacy, the 13.2 point differences between Blacks and Whites is inconsequential to meaningless, since the difference within Whites ranges from geniuses to idiots! Yet that difference has real meaningful consequences at many levels, particularly societal and sociological but also political.”
Hey EgalitarianJay, are you the same guy with anti-racist videos on YouTube and Dailymotion? I just want to tell you that I agree with you and I really appreciate what you are doing.
I agree with this website on certain other issues, but race is certainly not one of them.
Yes,
I am the same guy and thanks.
I agree with some things on Human-Stupidity as well.
The Race and Intelligence issue is definitely not one of them. Questioning the research of fringe theories driven by ideological agendas is not stupid. Racism is stupid.
Yes, I agree with that completely.
Yes Admin,
I really would like to get away from the immature personal quarreling. Frank will probably be a valuable asset to you if your goal is to promote the positions of racialists as he has done a lot of research for his side.
I’ve made my position clear. This research is not scientific and socially harmful. You all have a right to your opinion and people like me will keep you on your toes by providing the opposing view.
For me this isn’t about the Race & IQ debate it’s always been about combating racism, not only the scientific myths promoted by racists but the immoral world view of racism which is why on my Youtube channel you will find videos that have nothing to do with IQ but instead address the greater issue which is the effect that racial bigotry has had and continues to have on society.
@Frank, @Egalitarianjay, you are both great contributors to the discussions here BUT:
nobody cares about your private quibbles. I will have to start deleting further posts with private “you said, I said”, “he offended me” etc., even if it also contains useful information.
But, continue discussing FACTS, research, opinions, videos, books, arguments …………..
@Egalitarianjay: I disagree with most of your positions but greatly appreciate your contribution to get discussions going, especially youtube videos etc.
@Frank: I would love you to write a post here, focusing on human stupidity interest:
What are the strategies that EJ, but especially famous people like Nisbett, Graves, politically correct press, politicians do to distract from obvious scientific facts. Methods of distraction and disinformation. That is really the interest of Human-Stupidity. We can talk via email.
Frank: You said nothing about “character assassination” not that you have any character to assassinate mind you.
EgalitarianJay: I clearly said….
“I’ve had enough of this shit. I’ve had enough of the flaming both in rep comments and on the board mostly from YOU. You’re just as bad as they are you just don’t use racial slurs. When someone says something you don’t like you maliciously personally attacked them.”
Did you forget that part? You are under some delusion that I am bothered by the level of debate you bring Frank but I have faced plenty of tough debaters on the internet and the discussions didn’t devolve into flame wars. They do with you because you are prone to personally attack opponents in malicious ways. Unless you lack reading comprehension you can clearly see that I rationalized the porn PM as a reaction to your flaming. Again I included the racist reps because I saw your comment as a last straw.
Honestly I think you deserved worse than 3 images. I would force you to watch a whole movie if I could.
Frank: Hell, even when I look for Youtube videos on Rushton, I find your name more than I do his…or at least it is pretty close near the top.
EgalitarianJay: This comment is so stupid it needs to be revisited. Don’t you know that the Rushton-Graves video is split into multiple parts? When you search for Rushton you are getting several parts of the same video which were all uploaded by me. And the fact that they are near the top is only a compliment to me because it shows that the video is gaining exposure which was my goal.
Frank, the Rushton-Graves video I uploaded has been viewed by thousands of people. It actually has more views than a lecture by Rushton uploaded around the same time. On Youtube you can monitor the stats for your video. My video has been linked around the internet on various websites, blogs and message boards.
People comment on the video every single day. Mostly angry racists but also Egalitarians who are happy to see Rushton refuted. It is a part of internet conversation on Race & IQ. Other Youtubers have talked about Graves and my video in their own videos.
Another Egalitarian PM’d me and asked if he could upload my video as one file so now it is available without splits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeM_-FTxuew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eRtjgKlt8s
Overall I would say that my contribution to this topic has been an overwhelming success. The debates on ThePhora, which is an obscure message board, are a minor part of my involvement with this debate. You want to boast that you destroyed my internet reputation but most people who encounter my info will not even be aware of you nor care about our silly flame war.
Besides I have used the name EgalitarianJay on other boards and spammed racists with interracial porn before. If they are still on the internet look up my ArguewithEveryone debates.
You call me a moral fraud but I’m just a normal guy who does not like racism and will put racists in their place when I see fit to do so.
The masses? Ha! What masses? No one cares about our stupid flame war that you started Frank. You think you have exposed me as some type of fraud but I’ve never claimed to be above sticking it to Net-Nazis like yourself.
I didn’t do anything evil. Most people would think sending interracial porn to racists is funny. Infact that is the response I got on Egyptsearch. Harjit has congratulated me via email for making a fool out of you as well. I not only find nothing immoral about subjecting you and the other Phora racists to porn I find it hilarious. You should read the rest of the jokes I made about you after you were banned.
I bet you’ve already seen them but check this stuff out.
My response to your banning announcement:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064415&postcount=61
My response to your claim of my spiritual inferiority:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064425&postcount=65
My comment on your new residence:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064482&postcount=70
My response to Burrhus’ pleas for your return:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064499&postcount=72
This one might be my personal favorite:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1064676&postcount=87
Go ahead and laugh at yourself Frank it’s ok.
You know I will!
EGALITARIAN JAY: You are still incapable of honesty. I made it clear to you that your comment was the last straw. You can judge me all you want but the racists who spammed me with hateful neg rep comments are scum and I treated them like the scum they are. You lot are not innocent children whom it would be appalling to send pornography to.
FRANK: You gave your reasons here Egalitarian Jay:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1059578&postcount=123
You said nothing about “character assassination” not that you have any character to assassinate mind you. Your complaints were centered around the reputation points you received from other posters. This was the sole example of abuse you offered to justify your actions.
EGALITARIAN JAY: You are grown men posting on the internet and acting like idiots. You deserve to be treated like idiots.
FRANK: This is a rich criticism coming from a person who just created a childish picture of my “tombstone.” You accuse me of childish behaviour when you send pornography in a fit of rage and create childish little cartoon images to mock people you do not like…
The real sad part is you are no better than the people you mock and insult.
EGALITARIAN JAY: Again I achieved my goal with this debate. You got yourself banned from the only forum you claim to post on. Even your supporters on The Phora are questioning the wisdom of your actions and expressing disappointment with you.
FRANK: What you have done is prove to the masses that you are moral fraud. You are the equivalent of the televangelist who condemns other people for their sins and then turns around and beds his sisters husband.
You have the nerve to pass judgement like a religious fanatic arguing that racists are so evil that they should not be taken seriously when you are by the far the far greater evil. You are the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.
By the way Frank, do you like your tombstone?
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4152/franktombstone.png
You are still incapable of honesty. I made it clear to you that your comment was the last straw. You can judge me all you want but the racists who spammed me with hateful neg rep comments are scum and I treated them like the scum they are. You lot are not innocent children whom it would be appalling to send pornography to.
You are grown men posting on the internet and acting like idiots. You deserve to be treated like idiots.
It doesn’t matter where else I post. I’m a grown man I can do whatever I want. It is a complete joke for you to make any complaints about my behavior considering the way you act. I do not care what some racists on the internet think of me. You don’t seem to understand that. To me you guys are nothing but racists and racists are not people I consider to be worthy of respect.
I laugh at people like you who try to judge me. What do you do? You throw a temper tantrum and in a fit of rage request that you be banned from a forum.
You say that when you search for Rushton some of my videos come near the top on Youtube? Good! That’s the idea. I want my videos near the top of those Youtube searches because that racist quack should be exposed for what he is.
Again I achieved my goal with this debate. You got yourself banned from the only forum you claim to post on. Even your supporters on The Phora are questioning the wisdom of your actions and expressing disappointment with you.