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
Reply to Frank on #1: In this book Jensen (1998, 1999) pursues his well-known arguments about g, a ‘general, cognitive factor’. But it isn’t difficult to show that what is cognitive is not general, and what is general is not cognitive. Scores on standardised psychometric tests intercorrelate partly because they have been subjected to considerable construction engineering on the basis of common criteria. Jensen himself has noted how ‘every item is carefully edited and selected on the basis of technical procedures known as “item analysis”, based on tryouts of the items on large samples and the test’s target population’ (1980:145). Even so, because item designs tend to be intuitive, and the criteria for item selection statistical and pragmatic, rather than theoretical, there is sill much puzzlement about what the common factor actually is. Other cognitive theory might help us in this regard……the ‘common factor’ which emerges in test performances stems from a combination of (a) the (hidden) cultural content of tests; (b) cognitive self-efficacy beliefs; and (c) the self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety associated with such beliefs. In other words, g is just an mystificational numerical surrogate for social class membership. This is what is being distilled when g is statistically ‘extracted’ from performances. Perhaps the best evidence for this is the ‘Flynn effect,’ (Fkynn 1999) which simply corresponds with the swelling of the middle classes and greater exposure to middle-class cultural tools. It is also supported by the fact that the Flynn effect is more prominent with non-verbal than with verbal test items – i.e. with the (covertly) more enculturated forms.
Reply to Frank on #2: “Although the correlation between IQ scores and school performance is one deliberately built into tests, it produces large ‘knock-on’ effects, such as a built-in correlation with occupational status. Further correlations are built in by the fact that g also reflects cognitive self-efficacy beliefs and self-confidence/freedom-from-anxiety. This will explain the (weak) correlation between IQ and rate of learning (or job training), and also why such associations crease with task complexity.”
Reply to Frank on #3: Hereditarians tend to favor a predominately genetic component for both individual and group differences.
Reply to Frank on #4: This was of course in reference to averages.
Reply to Frank on #5: An argument which has been challenged by many:
http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/440.pdf
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf
http://wicherts.socsci.uva.nl/wichertsPAIDrejoinder.pdf
http://mathsci.free.fr/graves.pdf
Reply to Frank on #6:
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html
The problem is that social definitions and biological definitions of race differ. The scientific study of race derives from Physical Anthropology and in that discipline it has a formal meaning:
Race’ is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name10. In current systematic practice, the designation ‘subspecies’ is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence…We argue that the correct use of the term ‘race’ is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. ‘Race’ gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes ‘natural’ distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change.
When race is equated with sub-species we find that the genetic diversity of human populations with different phenotypes do not meet the phlyogenetic criteria for classification as sub-species. Their DNA does not structure into evolutionarily distinct lineages which indicate a fission of human populations into emerging species:
“Coalescence times19, 20 calculated from various genes suggest that the differentiation of modern humans began in Africa in populations whose morphological traits are unknown; it cannot be assumed from an evolutionary perspective that the traits used to define ‘races’ emerged simultaneously with this divergence15. There was no demonstrable ‘racial’ divergence.”
Disciplines like population genetics and forensic anthropology can scientifically identify biological variation that does exist. But when it comes to scientific classification the identification of human races is dependent on an understanding of human evolution. It isn’t denied that genetic or phenotypic variation or similarity exists. But biological difference does not equal race.
MORPHEUS: 1. General intelligence can be quantified by a single metric known as g.
FRANK: “A working definition of intelligence, then, is that it is the g factor of an indefinitely large and varied battery of mental tests….We are forced to infer that g is of considerable importance in ‘real life’ by the fact that g constitutes the largest component of total variance in all standard tests of intelligence or IQ, and the very same g is by far the largest component of variance in scholastic achievement (Jensen, 1979, pp. 249-50).”
MORPHEUS: 2. Standardized tests can be utilized to measure g.
FRANK: “Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.
While there are different types of intelligence tests,
they all measure the same intelligence. Some use words or numbers and require specific cultural knowledge (like vocabulary). Others do not, and instead use shapes or designs and require knowledge of only simple, universal concepts (many/few, open/closed, up/down).”
MORPHEUS: 3. g is mostly genetically determined.
FRANK: The arguments range from a 50%-%50% split to an 80%-20% split. At no time is environmental stimuli dismissed.
MORPHEUS: 4. Races differ consistently in their performance on intelligence tests.
FRANK: This is false, on average racial groups tend to perform consistently on different scales but there are variations and anomalies. It is not universally true for every person of every race. There are exceptions to the rule.
MORPHEUS: 5. This difference must in part be due to the genetic differences between races.
FRANK: Rushton and Jensen support his view:
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
MORPHEUS: 6. Races of human being can be unambiguously defined by biological means.
FRANK: Considering that people can be classified as Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid by genetic analysis and forensic anthropology gives these classifications biological reality whether you call them a race or a population group.
Here is the racial hereditarian syllogism:
1. General intelligence can be quantified by a single metric known as g.
2. Standardized tests can be utilized to measure g.
3. g is mostly genetically determined.
4. Races differ consistently in their performance on intelligence tests.
5. This difference must in part be due to the genetic differences between races.
6. Races of human being can be unambiguously defined by biological means.
If the premises of the argument are falsified then the theory has been discredited.
All of the major premises are analyzed and debunked in this essay:
http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?10.048
Abstract
Jensen’s elaborate thesis on g can be shown to be based on several fallacious premises. IQ tests are merely clever numerical surrogates for social class. The numerous correlations evoked in support of g arise from this. His ‘genetic’ arguments are based on a highly simplistic, and outmoded, model of genes. And his model of “race” is based on evolutionary misconceptions.
Readers can decide for themselves what to believe. I will believe the mainstream scholars who have cited empirical evidence discrediting racialist theories over fringe scholars who have presented nothing but pseudoscientific research to support their claims.
MORPHEUS: What you did is dodged the actual arguments of Nisbett and copied and pasted a pathetic attempt at a counter by Rushton and Jensen which I easily picked apart.
FRANK: And the real laughable is this is what you do! I have offered very detailed criticisms of Nisbett from his promotion of a fraudster to his drawing overall conclusions on intelligence using child IQ without a follow up component. I have pointed out that even these studies are based on cherry-picking while I had to explain to you why his criticisms of the MTRA studies did not make sense.
To further the argument, I presented a 2010 article from Rushton and Jensen offering a POINT BY POINT refutation of Nisbetts positions only for you to dismiss the response as “pathetic” without any qualifiers contrary to your empty bravado.
The real funny part is you have yet to even adequately respond to the beating Jensen laid on Gould in his response. You just expressed disappointment in Gould for not having the mandhood to respond and moved on.
http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html
The real ironic part is you are guilty of the those acts you attribute to me.
MORPHEUS: What are we to make then of the IQs of Native Americans whose ancestors at one time spanned two continents? The Inuit are just one tribe. The inconsistencies of the theory aren’t it’s only problem. The fact that it is based on an evolutionary model that has been discredited means that racial hereditarians have no biological rationale for their claim of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.
FRANK: I do not even have the heart to tell him that Native Indians outperform blacks on IQ tests but I will say that you are simply using the same outdated arguments that are little more than non-sequiturs on a massive scale.
There are anomalies in pretty well each of the IQ theories. For example, the average IQ for one Balkan nation is 90; while Germany averages an IQ of 107 yet one would argue that the average IQ for White peoples is not 99 – 100 because of these anomalies.
Nobody denies that there are exceptions to the rule. There are variations yet we see a distinct pattern if we draw our conclusions from averages instead of the variations. Draw conclusions on the rule rather than the exceptions.
The rule says:
NE ASIANS: 100-110
WHITES: 90-107
BLACKS: 70-85
It would be silly to deny heredity based on mere variations that can be found in many theories of such a nature.
MORPHEUS: Look who’s trying to play psychologist now! That’s what this is really all about. A personal vendetta against me. To me Frank you are just another racist. You spend so much energy trying to debate me because you want me to feel like I am not as smart as you think I am perceived to be or perceive myself to be.
FRANK: As we can see Morpheus tries to take the high ground but fails miserably to do so. The fact is he is being intellectually destroyed, his sources are being successfully discredited and his failure to provide any sort of a rational defense of his positions is being exposed. So he resorts to the tactic of a truly desperate debater, he calls me a racist.
Calling me a racist is a classless way of saying that he does not have an argument. One must ask what he plans to call me next…a poopie-head?
MORPHEUS: Frank I notice how you completely dodged the arguments posed by Nisbett and simply rehash the same strawmen against Graves.
FRANK: You are projecting again Morpheus, ignoring counter-evidence is your thing not mine.
I have addressed each and every argument posed by Nisbett, I even included sources that illustrated the dishonest nature of his scholarship:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf
In fact, I so savaged the mans works in our debates that you were left with no choice to concede that he promoted a fraudster, a likely fraudulent study and that he failed to adequately defend charges of cherry-picking.
MORPHEUS: The racial discrimination against East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews isn’t comparable to Black Africans.
FRANK: If you go to any B’nai Brith website they will prop up the idea of a “new anti-semitism.” It is not uncommon for Jewish leaders to stir fears of another holocaust to keep Jewish communities united.
Add this to the events of WWII; I would certainly argue that the Jewish community would share feelings of crippling persecution based on the fear promoted by those leaders within their ranks.
MORPHEUS: A better comparison would be Native Americans who have lower average IQs despite traveling to the Americas from Northeast Asia where their ancestors lived within the same environmental conditions as modern Northeast Asians. Why didn’t the cold winter lead to them having high IQs?
FRANK: I have already explained this to you Morpheus on the Phora. You can find the answer in the following article:
“Lynn also notes some anomalies in the cold winter theory of intelligence. The most striking: the Inuit, exposed to the coldest winter temperatures, have a brain size equal to East Asians, and yet have an average IQ of only 91. To explain this anomaly, Lynn proposes that additional genetic processes are important—such as population size. The larger the network of co-operating and competing population groups (“demes”), the faster any mutations for advantageous alleles can spread. So large landmass groups like East Asians and Europeans average higher IQs than isolated hunter-gatherer groups like the Inuit.”
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/060322_iq.htm
MORPHEUS: Arguing with Racialists is like arguing with Creationists.
FRANK: And arguing with you is like arguing with an Atychiphobic megalomaniac who thinks he possesses some superior intellect! And you think you are an intellect because some diploma mill gave you some credits and a couple of obscure scholars give you the time of day.
Frank: You are projecting again Morpheus, ignoring counter-evidence is your thing not mine. I have addressed each and every argument posed by Nisbett, I even included sources that illustrated the dishonest nature of his scholarship….
Egalitarianjay: What you did is dodged the actual arguments of Nisbett and copied and pasted a pathetic attempt at a counter by Rushton and Jensen which I easily picked apart.
Frank: I would certainly argue that the Jewish community would share feelings of crippling persecution based on the fear promoted by those leaders within their ranks.
Egalitarianjay: No doubt Jews and East Asians have been persecuted however their modern communities did not experience the debilitating effects of institutional racism on a level equivalent to that experienced by African-Americans and Native Americans.
Frank: I have already explained this to you Morpheus on the Phora. You can find the answer in the following article…
Egalitarianjay: What are we to make then of the IQs of Native Americans whose ancestors at one time spanned two continents? The Inuit are just one tribe. The inconsistencies of the theory aren’t it’s only problem. The fact that it is based on an evolutionary model that has been discredited means that racial hereditarians have no biological rationale for their claim of genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.
Frank: And arguing with you is like arguing with an Atychiphobic megalomaniac who thinks he possesses some superior intellect! And you think you are an intellect because some diploma mill gave you some credits and a couple of obscure scholars give you the time of day.
Egalitarianjay: Look who’s trying to play psychologist now! That’s what this is really all about. A personal vendetta against me. To me Frank you are just another racist. You spend so much energy trying to debate me because you want me to feel like I am not as smart as you think I am perceived to be or perceive myself to be.
I don’t have a fear of failure Frank but you do. I detect projection. For instance you accused me of trying to deface Wikipedia as an attempt at character assassination. If you were truly interested in challenging yourself in civil debate you would go to Wikipedia and debate the editors there. But you won’t because it is out of your comfort zone (racialist blogs and racist forums) and you know that the level of debate there is too high brow for you.
An Atychiphobic megalomaniac describes you perfectly. Your Megalomania is apparent in your need to try to humble me even though I don’t boast about my intellectual prowess and your irrational fear of failure is revealed by your unwillingness to debate the Wikipedia scholars.
Frank I notice how you completely dodged the arguments posed by Nisbett and simply rehash the same strawmen against Graves. Graves didn’t just falsify a theory he showed that Rushton’s methodology for coming to his conclusions were in general flawed. Stupidity is trying to defend the research of fringe and discredited scholars. Arguing with Racialists is like arguing with Creationists.
Their views are appealing emotionally so they cling to them ignoring the invalidating evidence against them.
The racial discrimination against East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews isn’t comparable to Black Africans. A better comparison would be Native Americans who have lower average IQs despite traveling to the Americas from Northeast Asia where their ancestors lived within the same environmental conditions as modern Northeast Asians. Why didn’t the cold winter lead to them having high IQs?
MORPHEUS: Correlations between IQ and real world statistics only reflect the reality of racial stratification within human societies caused by institutional racism.
FRANK: From Rushton:
Genetic factors explain the worldwide pattern in a way that culture-only theory has not. The worldwide pattern contradicts the hypothesis that the low IQ
of American Blacks is due to “White racism.” For instance, Mackintosh (1998) wrote, “it is precisely the experience of being black in a society permeated by
white racism that is responsible for lowering black children’s IQ scores” (p. 152)
.
The IQs of Blacks in Africa is compelling evidence against this theory. The theory that White racism has been responsible for the low IQ of American Blacks always had an ad hoc quality to it because “racism” has had no adverse impact on the intelligence of East Asians and Jews, who average higher scores than do Europeans (Section 1).
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl2.pdf
MORPHEUS:The evidence does support a pure environmental model. The heritability of intelligence between individuals does not in itself tell us anything about the heritability between groups. In order to argue for a genetic cause to group differences in IQ you need a biological rationale.
FRANK: If people with an average IQ of 85 breed with like people of 85 IQ it is likely they will create offspring with IQ’s closest to this mean.
If this is done on a collective basis we have the biological rationale for intelligence on the basis that “most scholars” accept that IQ is 50% heredity.
MORPHEUS: The role of genes in racial differences in IQ could range from 100% to 0%.
FRANK: Which is not mathematically plausible considering that the development of intelligence is at minimal 50% genetic according to “most scholars.”
It also ignores that culture-only theories do not explain away the discrepancies in intelligence.
MORPHEUS: Graves made 4 arguments against Rushton’s biological rationale for racial differences in intelligence and temperament:
FRANK: Graves merely attacked a developmental environmental theory offered by Rushton; maybe the theory is debatable but the history of human development strikes me as quite reasonable.
Of course Graves, even in this case, put his foot in his mouth when he did not know the Dizygotic twin egging rates cited by Rushton when a 1 minute Google search could have confirmed the information. Some Biologist we have there folks.
However, Graves vastly screwed up when he tried to offer a counter on the issue of intelligence and race.
When Graves attacked Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. He tried to argue that alleged black shortcomings were due to “stereotype threat.” Here is the problem with that one:
1) Graves does not explain why the IQ’s of black children increased during their stay with the White parents. If anything, the environment proved to be beneficial to the black subjects. Is this not odd considering that black children were allegedly the victims of prejudice? Numerous adoption and general studies show that black subjects have the strongest IQ’s while their intelligence is still in the developmental stage where environmental stimuli would have the strongest influence.
2) Graves neglects to explain the universal regression toward the means for all racial groups. If blacks were the ones who suffered from such a unique problem the black IQ should have been the only one to regress but this is not the case. We see that the increases in IQ past the mean and the subsequent regression toward the mean is universal amongst all groups.
The arguments put forth by Graves do not adequately explain away the patterns established by Rushton. However, Graves is not an authority on the issue of intelligence measurement therefore it is no shock that his arguments are lacking in substance.
And the only counter you can come up with is a response from that cherry picking fraudster promoting clown Nisbett who ignored the above two points as well.
EgalitarianJay or Morpheus; you are the classic example of why the human stupidity blog exists.
The evidence does support a pure environmental model. The heritability of intelligence between individuals does not in itself tell us anything about the heritability between groups. In order to argue for a genetic cause to group differences in IQ you need a biological rationale.
The role of genes in racial differences in IQ could range from 100% to 0%.
Nisbett listed 4 categories of direct evidence supporting a pure environmental model:
1. Racial Admixture Studies
2. Convergence of Black and White IQ
3. Alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs
4. Adoption Studies
Graves made 4 arguments against Rushton’s biological rationale for racial differences in intelligence and temperament:
1. Rushton failed to grasp the history and formulation of density dependent selection theory.
2. Rushton failed to review the critical experiments that falsified the central predictions of
r- and K-selection theory.
3. Rushton incorrectly applied r- and K-theory to explain human life history evolution.
4. Rushton has presented data that are woefully inadequate to test any specific hypothesis
concerning the evolution of human life histories.
With Rushton’s biological rationale falsified and direct evidence supporting a Nil Hypothesis for genetic contribution the overwhelmingly evidence indicates that there are no genetically determined racial differences in intelligence.
Correlations between IQ and real world statistics only reflect the reality of racial stratification within human societies caused by institutional racism.
“Nisbett listed 4 categories of direct evidence supporting a pure environmental model:”
1. Racial Admixture Studies
Chuck: Nisbett cites two types of studies: studies based on skin color + negro appearance — which are in line with the hereditarian hypothesis — and studies based on blood groups — which are equivocal. It’s noticeable that Nisbett and friends are not helping to call for newer studies that utilize modern genotyping methods. They just keep spouting off about the case is close, so no proper testing needs to be done.
2. Convergence of Black and White IQ
Chuck: In 1969, Jensen made the case that the then 1SD race gap was 50-75% genetic in origin — he based this partially on the evidence that the within population heritability of IQ was 0.75. After 40 years of massive intervention, the current gap, using the IQ tests that Flynn and Dickens deem representable, is .9SD — still above Jensen’s predicted minimal.
Moreover, It has so turned out the the heritability of IQ increases linearly with age. As such, what matter in regards to the issue of genes and the race gap is the adult gap — that is, the gap at which time it would be predicted that genes play the dominant part . Based on the WAIS IV norms, which came out in 2008, this has increased.
The failure of massive intervention to close the adult race gap even partially argues strongly against the environmental hypothesis.
3. Alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs
Chuck: As predicted by the hereditarian hypothesis, intensive intervention programs such as Perry, Abecedarian, and the Chicago Early Childhood program had little to no lasting impact on IQ relative to the control groups.
4. Adoption Studies
When it comes to African Americans there were two adoption studies: Scar and Weinberg (1976/1992) and Moore (1986). Of these, only Scar and Weinberg’s was longitudinal and noted the offspring’s parent’s IQ. As Scar et al note, the Minnesota study supported a partial genetic hypothesis. The Moore study is inconclusive given that it was not longitudinal.
MORPHEUS: Frank is confusing the heritability of intelligence with the argument Rushton and Jensen are trying to make, which is the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence (i.e. partial genetic causation to racial differences in IQ).
I’ll refer to the argument of another commentator in the Youtube link I provided:
“I think you would be extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in intelligence. It’s extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in almost anything. Most things have some “hertiability” as we say. You will probably someday find a few of the genes that underlie that heritability but what that will tell you about Race and IQ I have no idea, I would imagine almost nothing” – Steve Jones
FRANK: They are on in the same argument hence the term hereditarian. It is the height of illogic to argue that genetics plays a 50% role in the development of human intelligence only to turn around and argue that genetics plays no part in collective intelligence.
If individual intelligence is 50% genetic and groups are merely collection of individuals how does one argue that genetics plays a 0% role in group differences?
It makes so sense especially when you consider that the evidence does not support a culture-only explanation:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf
MORPHEUS: I think people should notice by now that Frank likes to engage in mindless self-indulgence pretending to speak to a crowd about the weakness of his opponent’s arguments when in reality he is expressing bitterness at have been routinely beaten in debate. These rants are about him and his broken ego not debate.
FRANK: Morpheus begins with a well-poisoning attack in order to discredit me…
MORPHEUS: Their position remains at a theoretical stage. The problem is the major premises of their theory have been debunked. You can read a summary of the arguments in this article:
FRANK: Morpheus simply regurgitates an article that complains about skin colour not equaling race etc…
The actual evidence by Rushton and Jensen presented in their articles happens to be largely ignored:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Editorial%20for%20Intelligence.pdf
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2009%20IJN.pdf
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl2.pdf
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf
MORPHEUS: What Frank doesn’t tell you is that Nisbett cited multiple studies which directly test the genetic hypothesis for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap which shows a low correlation between high Black IQ and White ancestry. Frank cannot address these studies. He tried to cite Rushton and Jensen’s rebuttal as a counter argument but I addressed the weaknesses in their argument. Instead of addressing Nisbett’s studies he dismisses them as being cherry-picked and tries to discredit Nisbett as a researcher altogether based on this singular fraudulent study. This is a fallacious argument and shows desperation. It’s also a case of special pleading because Frank does not argue that Rushton has no credibility when he fudges data and distorts the research of other scholars.
FRANK: What Morpheus neglects to tell the forum is that Morpheus himself cited Nisbett for failing to adequately defend the cherry picking charges made by Rushton in the following articles:
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/100125_nisbett.htm
http://www.vdare.com/rushton/100723_nisbett.htm
Morpheus stated:
“I will admit right now that Nisbett’s comment on cherry-picking in his email to me was disappointing. He hasn’t even bothered to read all of Jensen and Rushton’s reply to him”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=998426&postcount=147
MORPHEUS: Frank is referring to Nisbett again however there’s really no substance to his charge.
FRANK: Of course there are substances to all of my charges Morpheus:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=998265&postcount=144
MORPHEUS: Frank is referring to Flynn and Dickens here who provided empirical evidence that the Black-White IQ gap is closing gradually. Even though Flynn and Dickens addressed all of Rushton and Jensen’s points Frank prefers to stick to their line of reasoning rather than acknowledge the valid arguments of Flynn and Dickens.
FRANK: Did you ignore the following part of your own posted article in which Flynn and Dickens concede the following:
“Our data give a current IQ for blacks age 24 of 83.4 or exactly 1.1 SDs below whites.”
That was from page 2 of their study Morpheus:
Now compare this with the words of Rushton:
“Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations); the differences are as large today as they were when first measured nearly 100 years ago.”
Your source Flynn and Dickens actually agree with Rushton! They agree that the gap remains 1.1 standard deviation! This alone should end the debate but I am not dealing with a rational thinker so I will pose some mathematical problems for you to answer…
1) At age 18 the gap is decreased by 2 points not the 4 to 7 cited by Flynn. Lets do the math Morpheus.
Original IQ gap is 85 vs 100 = gap of 15 points.
New gap is 87 vs 100 = gap of 13 points.
This is neither the 4 to 7 point gain or the 7 to 10 point gain offered by your latest source.
2) You will notice the cut off at age 18? Why do they not give their results for age 24?
Well, we know why Morpheus because if the results for age 24 are given we will learn that the black IQ regresses to 83.4 which increases the gap by 1.6.
Again, Lets do the math Morpheus.
-Original gap is 85 vs 100 = gap of 15 points.
-Revised Flynn gap for 18 year old blacks set at 87 vs 100 = gap of 13 points. The closure is two points.
-Adult black IQ gap is 83.4 vs 100 = gap of 16.6. The gap has increased.
So explain to me how the gap has closed when the gap went from 15 points to 16.6 points?
What Flynn and Dickens have actually done is splice the data to draw blanket conclusions based on child IQ’s. Why do they refuse to draw such conclusions based on the final result rendered in adulthood when the human brain is developed? Because they know their fantasy would be shattered.
By age 18 Morpheus the subjects have an IQ of 87.0. This score illustrates a gap closure of 2 points not 4 to 6, Rushton offers the number 3.44 based on their own ridiculous arguments. At age 12, one can argue such a closure and that is assuming you ignore the results past age 12. Lets’ cut to the chase, Flynn and Dickens merely cherry-picked the scores they wanted to use and used these scores to draw their conclusions.
I think people should notice by now that Frank likes to engage in mindless self-indulgence pretending to speak to a crowd about the weakness of his opponent’s arguments when in reality he is expressing bitterness at have been routinely beaten in debate. These rants are about him and his broken ego not debate.
My point stands on race, genes and intelligence. Racialist Hereditarians have not provided a casual link between these three attributes. Even Rushton and Jensen admit to not having found a casual link, their research is based on correlations. They argue in favor of a weight of evidence as Rushton admits in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM6Ekv4L6h4
Their position remains at a theoretical stage. The problem is the major premises of their theory have been debunked. You can read a summary of the arguments in this article:
http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/440.pdf
Frank is confusing the heritability of intelligence with the argument Rushton and Jensen are trying to make, which is the claim that there are genetically determined racial differences in intelligence (i.e. partial genetic causation to racial differences in IQ).
I’ll refer to the argument of another commentator in the Youtube link I provided:
“I think you would be extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in intelligence. It’s extremely foolish to deny that there is a hereditary component in almost anything. Most things have some “hertiability” as we say. You will probably someday find a few of the genes that underlie that heritability but what that will tell you about Race and IQ I have no idea, I would imagine almost nothing” – Steve Jones
What Frank doesn’t seem to grasp is that the hereditarians have not provided a valid biological rationale for racial differences in intelligence. Rushton tried but failed miserably. His theory was easily falsified by evolutionary biologist Joseph L Graves and other experts on evolutionary biology have issued similar criticisms.
Frank also doesn’t understand my point about dog and human evolutionary histories. Ofcourse they are not the same species. What I am saying is that they are not structured genetically in a similar way. What we call breeds exist in dogs but not in humans. Those breeds came about through selective mating in order to express certain phenotypic traits.
Now regarding my sources:
1. Frank is referring to Richard Nisbett. While I acknowledge that Nisbett cited ONE study that appears to be fraudulent that is irrelevant to the research he presented in this article I linked to in our debate:
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/nisbett-on-rushton-and-jensen.pdf
What Frank doesn’t tell you is that Nisbett cited multiple studies which directly test the genetic hypothesis for the cause of the Black-White IQ gap which shows a low correlation between high Black IQ and White ancestry. Frank cannot address these studies. He tried to cite Rushton and Jensen’s rebuttal as a counter argument but I addressed the weaknesses in their argument. Instead of addressing Nisbett’s studies he dismisses them as being cherry-picked and tries to discredit Nisbett as a researcher altogether based on this singular fraudulent study. This is a fallacious argument and shows desperation. It’s also a case of special pleading because Frank does not argue that Rushton has no credibility when he fudges data and distorts the research of other scholars.
2. Frank is referring to Nisbett again however there’s really no substance to his charge.
3. Frank is referring to Flynn and Dickens here who provided empirical evidence that the Black-White IQ gap is closing gradually. Even though Flynn and Dickens addressed all of Rushton and Jensen’s points Frank prefers to stick to their line of reasoning rather than acknowledge the valid arguments of Flynn and Dickens.
Frank is blowing hot air with the rest of his response. I brought up the Psychology and Biology books to note that Rushton et al.’s views are fringe.
Frank will not be able to provide us with a biology book that states that there are human races which differ in intelligence and temperament nor a Psychology book that does so. The reason is because no biological rationale has been proven valid for explaining racial differences in IQ.
This crap is not taught in school because it is a fringe and discredited theory.
I am sorry folks…the following:
“One source was caught cherry-picking and Morpheus was forced to concede that he could provide an adequate defense to the charge”
Should read:
“One source was caught cherry-picking and Morpheus was forced to concede that he could NOT provide an adequate defense to the charge.”
Frank
MORPHEUS:No Frank. Racialist Hereditarians have claimed that there is a genetic component to IQ score variation between races. They have not proven their case. They have not found a causal link between race, genes and intelligence.
FRANK: And this is why the blog “human-stupidity” exists folks. Lets examine the Egalitarian logic folks.
Morpheus concedes that “most scholars” apply a 50% genetic causation to the development of intelligence. He does not dispute this.
Assuming Morpheus is referring to individual intelligence, which he did not originally, we must remember that collectives are merely large numbers of individuals. Hence, collective intelligence is just as inherited as individual intelligence.
Morpheus in a true spirit of doublethink acknowledges that intelligence is 50% genetic but also argues that the Hereditarians have failed to prove that intelligence has a genetic component. Of course, he ignores the evidence provided by people like Rushton and Jensen but even if we omit them we can see that he is arguing two sides of one argument.
Welcome to egalitarian logic…
MORPHEUS: The point is that dogs and humans do not have the same evolutionary histories so you can not use the same biological rationale to claim that there are racial differences in intelligence. The Admin’s dog analogy is an appeal to ridicule and it fails to give any credibility to the racialist argument.
FRANK: This is one of the tricks Egalitarians like to use. I never argued that canines and homo-sapiens are of the same species.
I pointed out to Morpheus that his ad hominem position against human IQ research was flawed as there are indeed IQ tests for dogs as well…
Second, the position Morpheus is a non-sequitur. Canines and Felines do not share an evolutionary history yet we can measure intelligence in those species.
In addition, not sharing an evolutionary history does not negate the fact that legions of species, including humans, have one shared universal trait, their sub-groups have unique traits, features and expressions of life. For example, the fox example Morpheus once brought up is a classic example.
MORPHEUS: I am not appealing to anonymous authority I can name specific scholars who have debunked specific claims.
FRANK: The problem with this is Morpheus does not realize that an appeal to anonymous authority is still an appeal to anonymous authority. Just because HE CAN provide “scholars” to provide counter points did not mean that he did so…
The reason Morpheus has not provided them is I have proven the following about his sources on the Phora:
1) One source promoted a fraudster and a discredited study to support his claims.
2) One source was caught cherry-picking and Morpheus was forced to concede that he could provide an adequate defense to the charge.
3) Two other sources cannot perform basic mathematics in calculating gaps.
MORPHEUS: Can you name even one college level Psychology or Biology book printed in the last 10 years where the theory of racial differences in intelligence is mentioned as a current, credible theory in science? If not I rest my case.
FRANK: This is an appeal to ignorance and a fallacy. You think Morpheus would have learned his lesson though after challenging people to present dog IQ tests.
The fact that he thinks a Biology textbook is a valid source to challenge intelligence testing by population groups should illustrate the desperation of the weak position of this silly little clown named EgalitarianJay.
FRANK: Now you are just appealing to emotionalism. In addition you are appealing to ridicule, popularity and anonymous authority. The racial hereditarians argue in favour of both heredity and environmental causes for the development of intelligence. You admit that the majority of scholars support this position. It would appear that the “racialists” have proven their case by your own admission.
EgalitarianJay: No Frank. Racialist Hereditarians have claimed that there is a genetic component to IQ score variation between races. They have not proven their case. They have not found a causal link between race, genes and intelligence. I am not appealing to anonymous authority I can name specific scholars who have debunked specific claims. Can you name even one college level Psychology or Biology book printed in the last 10 years where the theory of racial differences in intelligence is mentioned as a current, credible theory in science? If not I rest my case.
FRANK: In other words we are to ignore the psychology authorities on the issue because Morpheus has decided that no cognitive differences exist between the so-called races. And this position is based on the fact that we were not bred in puppy mills. This is logic for you folks…
EgalitarianJay: The point is that dogs and humans do not have the same evolutionary histories so you can not use the same biological rationale to claim that there are racial differences in intelligence. The Admin’s dog analogy is an appeal to ridicule and it fails to give any credibility to the racialist argument.
Here is a counter article to the ones provided my Morpheus earlier. It also deals with the more detailed criticisms of IQ and race offered by Nisbett etc…
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl2.pdf
MORPHEUS: Don’t lie Frank. I didn’t ignore any of your points I addressed all of that. Using the fog of war argument is an excuse and there was no full scale war going on that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a part of. The U.S. army was the one who waged war on Native American nations under the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. I also acknowledge that Egalitarian minded Whites made reforms to end degeneracy within their culture that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.
FRANK: As you folks will learn EgalitarianJay is quick tempered but slower to think. He ignores that slavery is such a part of African culture that it is practiced to this day. In contrast the British fought to abolish slavery in Africa in the 1800’s.
MORPHEUS: By the way Frank have you re-considered debating the Wikipedia editors you accused of vandalizing Wiki articles related to Rushton and the Race and Intelligence debate? I’m sure all of the readers here would be interested to know that I have agreed to debate Rushton himself on The Phora under the condition that Frank debate those Wikipedia editors!
FRANK: As you should all note, this has nothing to do with the debate on this blog. Morpheus is merely angry at me so is lashing out like a 7 year old child.
MORPHEUS: That’s very interesting however as I said before humans were not selectively bred by dogs. There is no biological rationale for claiming major cognitive differences exist between so-called races.
FRANK: In other words we are to ignore the psychology authorities on the issue because Morpheus has decided that no cognitive differences exist between the so-called races.
And this position is based on the fact that we were not bred in puppy mills. This is logic for you folks…
MORPHEUS: As I explained to you before that is not what he said. That video is available to everyone to read. He said that stereotype threat could have STUNTED Black scores or ELEVATED Asian scores depending on the expectations of the parents and teachers therefore the environments for the different children are not equal due to society’s cultural prejudices. The issue Graves took with Rushton was using the adoption study as good way to test for hereditary and environmental factors. You have to actually watch the video to grasp the arguments.
FRANK: But here is the flaw in the argument. In the tests the black child IQ’s were raise by the exact same number as the White child IQ’s. We see that the environment was positive for them.
However, by age 17 all of the groups in question had a drop in IQ that settled closer to their average means namely 100 for the White kids and 85 for the black kids.
The rise and regression of IQ’s were universal amongst all of the groups. So how would Graves explain these inconvenient facts?
MORPHEUS: Correlation is not causation. Racialist hereditarians have not proven their theories. The biological rationales they have posed (such as Rushton’s evolutionary theory) have been falsified.
The status of racialism is that of a fringe theory which is widely regarded as a discredited pseudoscience (Scientific Racism) much like Creationism.
FRANK: Now you are just appealing to emotionalism. In addition you are appealing to ridicule, popularity and anonymous authority.
The racial hereditarians argue in favour of both heredity and environmental causes for the development of intelligence. You admit that the majority of scholars support this position.
It would appear that the “racialists” have proven their case by your own admission.
MORPHEUS: As I explained to you before that is not what he said. That video is available to everyone to read. He said that stereotype threat could have STUNTED Black scores or ELEVATED Asian scores depending on the expectations of the parents and teachers therefore the environments for the different children are not equal due to society’s cultural prejudices. The issue Graves took with Rushton was using the adoption study as good way to test for hereditary and environmental factors. You have to actually watch the video to grasp the arguments.
FRANK: But here is the flaw in the argument. In the tests the black child IQ’s were raise by the exact same number as the White child IQ’s. We see that the environment was positive for them.
However, by age 17 all of the groups in question had a drop in IQ that settled closer to their average means namely 100 for the White kids and 85 for the black kids.
The rise and regression of IQ’s were universal amongst all of the groups. So how would Graves explain these inconvenient facts?
Correlation is not causation. Racialist hereditarians have not proven their theories. The biological rationales they have posed (such as Rushton’s evolutionary theory) have been falsified.
The status of racialism is that of a fringe theory which is widely regarded as a discredited pseudoscience (Scientific Racism) much like Creationism.
MORPHEUS: Intelligence has a variety of different dimensions. In human beings we might subdivide intelligence into verbal ability, numerical ability, logical reasoning, memory, and so forth. The intelligence of dogs also has several different aspects, among which we recognize three major dimensions. The first is called instinctive intelligence. This really refers to what a dog was bred for. For example, herding dogs were bred to herd animals. Their ability to round up animals, keep them close together, and drive them in a particular direction is inborn and only requires human intervention to keep it under control and to give it a bit of direction.
FRANK: From the link I provided: “Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.”
MORPHEUS: Coren seems to agree with Howard Gardner that there are multiple intelligences and that only when controlling for specific types of intelligence can you feasibly rank dogs based on mental ability (they controlled for working and obedience).
FRANK: What he argues is that measuring intelligence in dogs requires differing forms of measurement than is required in humans. Of course this would be the case as no dog could possible score on the Stanford-Binet scales.
However, what must be understood is that dogs can be scored on an intelligence scale, have been scored and have been ranked with much accuracy. This would be difficult if intelligence was merely an abstract concept. Dr. Coren points out:
“The degree of agreement among the judges was amazingly high, suggesting that there were real observable differences that were being reliably detected. For example, when we consider the dogs ranked highest in obedience or working intelligence, we find that 190 of the 199 judges ranked the Border Collie in the top 10!”
MORPHEUS: There is debate within the scientific community about the nature of intelligence and how to measure it. Many scholars such as Howard Gardner are critical of the idea that a person’s intelligence can be characterized by a single numerical unit.
FRANK: Folks like Rushton and Jensen have little trouble drawing intelligence scores based on meticulous research:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf
FRANK: The problem is hereditarians do not argue against environment playing a role in intelligence. The problem for your side is that they acknowledge that both heredity and environment play a part in the development of IQ.
EgalitarianJay: That’s not a problem for my side. The problem for your side is that the burden of proof is on them to provide a biological rationale for a genetic component. Both sides agree to environment playing a major role.
FRANK: One of the greatest arguments against the racial discrimination argument has been the transracial adoption studies. During the most environmentally sensitive time of development, black IQ’s were raised drastically even though Joseph Graves argued that these black kids expected to fail due to some black persecution complex.
EgalitarianJay: As I explained to you before that is not what he said. That video is available to everyone to read. He said that stereotype threat could have STUNTED Black scores or ELEVATED Asian scores depending on the expectations of the parents and teachers therefore the environments for the different children are not equal due to society’s cultural prejudices. The issue Graves took with Rushton was using the adoption study as good way to test for hereditary and environmental factors. You have to actually watch the video to grasp the arguments.
FRANK: There is measured and proven powerful worldwide correlation of IQ along racial lines….While there are variations the scores are too perfectly aligned in a pattern to dismiss as random or arbitrary.
EgalitarianJay: Correlation is not causation. Racialist hereditarians have not proven their theories. The biological rationales they have posed (such as Rushton’s evolutionary theory) have been falsified.
The status of racialism is that of a fringe theory which is widely regarded as a discredited pseudoscience (Scientific Racism) much like Creationism.
MORPHEUS: I’m talking about group differences in IQ. Given how large a role environment plays in differences in IQ it is reasonable to assume it is the primary if not only factor in group differences.
FRANK: The problem is the scholars do not support this assumption, you admit this yourself. There is no reason to draw the non-sequitur conclusion that the development of intelligence is 50% genetic in some instances while 100% environmental in other instances.
You have to make up your mind Morpheus, is the development of intelligence based on the heredity model (50%-50% split) or the environmental model (100%-0%) split? Or even another split?
MORPHEUS: You could argue genetics plays a large enough role to assume a primarily genetic component but when it comes to racial discussion the racialist argument is at a disadvantage. The evidence for a major environmental influence is overwhelming. Noone in their right mind argues that racial discrimination has little to no influence on a person’s learning environment which impacts IQ.
FRANK: This is the argument Morpheus:
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-43536.html
The problem is hereditarians do not argue against environment playing a role in intelligence. The problem for your side is that they acknowledge that both heredity and environment play a part in the development of IQ.
One of the greatest arguments against the racial discrimination argument has been the transracial adoption studies. During the most environmentally sensitive time of development, black IQ’s were raised drastically even though Joseph Graves argued that these black kids expected to fail due to some black persecution complex. However, the regression to the mean took place by age 17. The interesting part is the regression took place with all racial groups which is odd if only ONE group faced unique discrimination.
MORPHEUS: On the flip side no causal link between race, genes and intelligence has been found. The few attempts at a biological rationale have been falsified.
FRANK: There is measured and proven powerful worldwide correlation of IQ along racial lines.
NE ASIANS: 100 to 110
WHITES: 90 to 107
BLACKS: 70 to 85
While there are variations the scores are too perfectly aligned in a pattern to dismiss as random or arbitrary.
MORPHEUS: Most scholars agree that nature and nurture play a factor in intelligence which is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental in influence.
With that much environmental influence a purely environmental or cultural model for group differences in IQ is not at all unreasonable.
FRANK: This is a classic example of the foolish reasoning of Morpheus. Morpheus concedes that “most scholars” offer a 50% genetic component to intelligence. Of course, this would be the conclusion if a 100% environmental model would fail to explain and control for all intelligence factors. Why would scholars reject a purely environmental explanation if the evidence supported such a conclusion?
Morpheus decides that even though the majority of scholars have rejected a 100% environmental explanation for intelligence that it is not unreasonable to assume a 100% environmental explanation for IQ.
His reasoning is that since only 50% of intelligence is genetic that it is fair to assume that intelligence is 100% environment because of the 50% environmental influences. Of course one could assume the reverse if basing the position on sheer numbers. The only thing that can be reasonably assumed is that the heredity model is the correct model, the heredity model argues that both genetics and environment play a part in intelligence.
Morpheus engages in a classic non-sequitur fallacy.
I’m talking about group differences in IQ. Given how large a role environment plays in differences in IQ it is reasonable to assume it is the primary if not only factor in group differences.
You could argue genetics plays a large enough role to assume a primarily genetic component but when it comes to racial discussion the racialist argument is at a disadvantage. The evidence for a major environmental influence is overwhelming. Noone in their right mind argues that racial discrimination has little to no influence on a person’s learning environment which impacts IQ.
On the flip side no causal link between race, genes and intelligence has been found. The few attempts at a biological rationale have been falsified.
Frank: In Russia 40% of all crime is attributed to immigrants.
EgalitarianJay: And how many of those immigrants are non-White? The fact is that some of the countries with the highest murder rates in the world are overwhelmingly majority White such as Ukraine, Belarus, Romania and Italy. Rushton aggregates countries by continent to come to his conclusions about race and crime. I’m talking about going country by country.
FRANK: I debated this issue with EgalitarianJay or Morpheus on the Phora. What he ignores is that many of these atrocities are actually common place in modern Africa…..He also ignores that most of the atrocities he speaks of in Europe took place during the times of war and conflict when humans were at their worse. He also ignores the facts that it was Europe that abolished slavery in Africa while creating human rights legislation geared toward curbing future atrocities.
EgalitarianJay: Don’t lie Frank. I didn’t ignore any of your points I addressed all of that. Using the fog of war argument is an excuse and there was no full scale war going on that the Transatlantic Slave Trade was a part of. The U.S. army was the one who waged war on Native American nations under the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. I also acknowledge that Egalitarian minded Whites made reforms to end degeneracy within their culture that doesn’t change the fact that it happened.
FRANK: Yet, you are the same person who religiously argued against a “racial hierarchy” of ability on the Phora?
EgalitarianJay: Did you not read that part where I said there were differences and commonalities? I stand by my claim that Rushton is a racialist as his theories fit the definition of that word. Acknowledging some biologically based differences in ability between humans does not make one an advocate of racialism. Claiming that Egalitarians insist we are all the same is a strawmen.
FRANK: No it is not:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
EgalitarianJay: And how does Gottfredson’s opinion piece challenge the claim that intelligence is a abstract concept?
FRANK: Are you not the same poster who once told me that you had no issue with intelligence being inherited?
EgalitarianJay: Ofcourse. Are you accusing me a contradiction? I recommend reading this article for more insight:
http://medicine.yale.edu/labs/kidd/440.pdf
FRANK: Psychometry is a valid scientific tool for measuring intelligence quotient.
EgalitarianJay: There is debate within the scientific community about the nature of intelligence and how to measure it. Many scholars such as Howard Gardner are critical of the idea that a person’s intelligence can be characterized by a single numerical unit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II9Y1mOKDhY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2QtSbP4FRg
FRANK: Sure…
http://www.petmedsonline.org/top-10-smartest-dogs-in-the-world.html
I had no trouble doing so, should I declare the author of the above link a Collie-Supremacist?
EgalitarianJay: Hmmm….
“Just as everyone wants to have smart kids, most people want to own clever dogs. However whether a dog is “smart” or “dumb” depends upon the specific aspects of its behavior we consider. For example, was Nobel Prize-winning physicist Albert Einstein intelligent? Obviously, to derive the theory of relativity required a mathematical genius. Yet Einstein was so bad at simple arithmetic that his checkbook was always out of balance.
Intelligence has a variety of different dimensions. In human beings we might subdivide intelligence into verbal ability, numerical ability, logical reasoning, memory, and so forth. The intelligence of dogs also has several different aspects, among which we recognize three major dimensions. The first is called instinctive intelligence. This really refers to what a dog was bred for. For example, herding dogs were bred to herd animals. Their ability to round up animals, keep them close together, and drive them in a particular direction is inborn and only requires human intervention to keep it under control and to give it a bit of direction.
Different breeds obviously have different types of instinctive intelligence. Guard dogs watch over things, retrievers fetch, hounds track or pursue, pointers sniff out birds and indicate their location by pointing, while companion dogs are attuned to human social signals and respond to our moods to provide comfort. Every dog has an instinctive intelligence, but it is senseless to make comparisons across breeds as to which are “smarter” in this respect—their abilities are simply too different to compare.”
Coren seems to agree with Howard Gardner that there are multiple intelligences and that only when controlling for specific types of intelligence can you feasibly rank dogs based on mental ability (they controlled for working and obedience).
That’s very interesting however as I said before humans were not selectively bred by dogs. There is no biological rationale for claiming major cognitive differences exist between so-called races.
By the way Frank have you re-considered debating the Wikipedia editors you accused of vandalizing Wiki articles related to Rushton and the Race and Intelligence debate? I’m sure all of the readers here would be interested to know that I have agreed to debate Rushton himself on The Phora under the condition that Frank debate those Wikipedia editors!
Hey Morpheus, here is another one on Dog IQ:
http://www.dogbehaviorblog.com/2009/06/canine-intelligence-ranking-dogs-by-breed.html
I guess Dr. Stanley Coren is also a Collie-Supremacist!
MORPHEUS: Intelligence on the other hand is not. Intelligence is an abstract concept.
FRANK: No, it is not:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html
MORPHEUS: There are many theories on the nature and heritability of intelligence.
FRANK: Are you not the same poster who once told me that you had no issue with intelligence being inherited?
MORPHEUS: Intelligence testing is not a hard science.
FRANK: Psychometry is a valid scientific tool for measuring intelligence quotient.
MORPHEUS: Can you give me a list of the Top 10 smartest dogs based on intelligence testing?
FRANK: Sure…
http://www.petmedsonline.org/top-10-smartest-dogs-in-the-world.html
MORPHEUS: If you are having difficulty doing this you should consider why.
FRANK: I had no trouble doing so, should I declare the author of the above link a Collie-Supremacist?
MORPHEUS: Cute post but I am afraid that this is a strawman.
Noone said that all humans are equal in ability.
FRANK: Yet, you are the same person who religiously argued against a “racial hierarchy” of ability on the Phora?
In fact you are such a fanatic on the issue that you once said: “I think the term racialist fits Rushton just fine as he promotes the idea of racial hierarchies in mental ability and other traits.”
You actually attach the “racialist” label to those who argue that not all human groups are equal in ability, intelligence and “other traits.”
Your quote is from post # 48 from the Phora thread: “Review of Race, Evolution and Behavior by C. Loring Brace.”
MORPHEUS: As for Black crime rates first of all African-American criminals are disproportionately represented in violent crime cases however it is not universally true that Blacks are more criminal than Whites across the globe. Several Eastern European countries have higher crime rates than several African countries. Crime is correlated with poverty and poor upbringing which is influenced by drug abuse. Crime is also not a concrete concept as what constitutes a crime differs from region to region
FRANK: In Russia 40% of all crime is attributed to immigrants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2760653.stm
Morpheus tends to ignore the effects that third world immigration has on crime rates.
If we look to the works of J. Phillipe Rushton we can discover, using older statistics, from interpol records that worldwide crime tends to be prevalent in nations with vast black majority populations:
http://www.prometheism.net/articles/crime.html
In the United States we see that black populations are overrepresented in everything from hate crime to serial killing statistics. In fact 7 out of the top 10 American murder states have larger black populations.
The selective breeding argument is ridiculous. Supposing if a new dog breed is bred through hybridization due to geographical location. Does this invalidate the traits the breed would possess in comparison to other breeds? The answer is no…
The existence of various traits within differing groups within a species is proof positive that such vast differences exist. No brainer huh?
MORPHEUS: As for crime rate Admin I would argue that a culture tolerating atrocities such as slavery and genocide (crimes against humanity) are far more representative of a population than crime rates because it involves a larger groups of people having a sinister mindset. The “discipline” of the crime is irrelevant it’s still a crime.
FRANK: I debated this issue with EgalitarianJay or Morpheus on the Phora. What he ignores is that many of these atrocities are actually common place in modern Africa. The latest mass “genocide” was in Darfur while a more recent one was in Rwanda.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, practices like slavery, war, cannibalism, female genital mutilation, violent racism and murder are still widely practiced. In fact, blood rituals and witchcraft are prevalent in many African nations and part of the common culture. Rape is a blood sport in many African nations.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=136213262
He also ignores that most of the atrocities he speaks of in Europe took place during the times of war and conflict when humans were at their worse. He also ignores the facts that it was Europe that abolished slavery in Africa while creating human rights legislation geared toward curbing future atrocities.
Great comment! This is a clear example of character traits, like propensity to violent crime. Of course, Egalitarianjay will say that whites are better at organized, disciplined killing and genocide, omitting that blacks clearly, by any statistics, create more gang and other violent crime mayhem in their neighborhood.
Not to excuse the disciplined “legal” genocide, but an organized police force doing crimes by the legal code is different from thugs doing street violence
First of all I think that was a terrible analogy. Why in the world would you leave a hungry dog alone with a child? They are both likely to kill the kids. The argument ofcourse is that dog breeds differ in temperament. This is true but they were bred that way. If you selectively breed a group together who exhibit a certain trait odds are they well express that trait with a high frequency.
But humans were never selectively bred like that.
So the biological basis for difference in temperament between dogs and humans are not the same. Rushton tried to claim a selective pressure based on adopting different reproductive strategy but his theory was proven to be false.
As for crime rate Admin I would argue that a culture tolerating atrocities such as slavery and genocide (crimes against humanity) are far more representative of a population than crime rates because it involves a larger groups of people having a sinister mindset. The “discipline” of the crime is irrelevant it’s still a crime.
As for Black crime rates first of all African-American criminals are disproportionately represented in violent crime cases however it is not universally true that Blacks are more criminal than Whites across the globe. Several Eastern European countries have higher crime rates than several African countries. Crime is correlated with poverty and poor upbringing which is influenced by drug abuse. Crime is also not a concrete concept as what constitutes a crime differs from region to region.
Most human societies agree on unacceptable violent behavior but again atrocities like genocide represent violence on a larger scale. There is no universal hierarchy in violent crime nor is one group of people more inclined towards violence due to genetics than another. There’s simply no evidence of that.
Cute post but I am afraid that this is a strawman.
Noone said that all humans are equal in ability.
I think any reasonable person can see a difference between analyzing running ability and mental ability.
There are clear anatomical differences between a Greyhound and a Wiener Dog that accounts for their different potentials for running ability and a test of speed is very easy to control for.
Intelligence on the other hand is not. Intelligence is an abstract concept. There are many theories on the nature and heritability of intelligence. Intelligence testing is not a hard science. Can you give me a list of the Top 10 smartest dogs based on intelligence testing? There are animal psychologists out there interested in animal intelligence so this is not an unreasonable request.
If you are having difficulty doing this you should consider why. Not too many people are interested in ranking the intelligence of dog breeds. A handful are interested in ranking races most likely because they have racist agendas. Most scholars agree that nature and nurture play a factor in intelligence which is about 50% genetic and 50% environmental in influence.
With that much environmental influence a purely environmental or cultural model for group differences in IQ is not at all unreasonable.
Social discrimination has an obvious and undoubtedly profound influence on racial disparities in Socioeconomic status. Not even the most committed of racialist scholars denies this. They simply insist on a genetic component.
In order to lend credibility to a genetic hypothesis you need a biological rationale. Rushton has gone the route of using the theory of evolution to support his racialist claims. However he has failed miserably as he was debunked by actual evolutionary biologists.